home

Kim Jong's Youngest Son to Succeed Him

Kim Jong-un, the youngest son of Kim Jong-il, who died this weekend, will be his successor. His son has been being groomed for the job since at least 2010 when he was made a four-star general:

Mr. Kim’s s youngest son, Kim Jong-un, was promoted on Sept. 28 to the rank of four-star general, a prerequisite for his ascendancy to power. The elder Mr. Kim, who is said to be in poor health after apparently suffering a stroke in 2008, has hurried the succession of his son in recent weeks.

Here is North Korea's official statement of Kim Jong-il's death. Reuters has this timeline of his rule.

The media is full of articles about Kim Jong-il and how he turned North Korea into a communist state. The BBC reports citizens of North Korea are mourning his death. [More...]

As to his death, he'd been ill for a long time, suffering a stroke in 2008. He apparently he died of a heart attack:

Kim had been treated for "cardiac and cerebrovascular diseases for a long period." He suffered a heart attack on Saturday and couldn't be saved despite the use of "every possible first-aid measure," according to the agency.

< Sunday Evening Open Thread | Monday Afternoon Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Kim -un remains (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 10:09:03 AM EST
    an unknown quantity. I wonder how many War College theses have been written about North Korea.

    At the end of the day, it's difficult to be a North Korea expert.

    My husband always called him (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 10:22:54 PM EST
    Little Kim....as if he were a rapper or something of that caliber.

    Parent
    Well, you see (none / 0) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 12:32:00 PM EST
    It is reported that the older sons were lazy playboy types. They only wanted to nuke Seoul and Tokyo....

    The youngest is a hard worker who wants to nuke Seoul, Tokyo, Seattle, Portland, LA.......

    Parent

    Why don't (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 12:37:03 PM EST
    you just build a bomb shelter and live out the rest of your life there. You are scared of your own shadow. There comes a point where you can't let fear rule your life.

    Parent
    Thanks for the advice (none / 0) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 01:03:51 PM EST
    but I'm having too much fun watching you deny to yourself that we actually have enemies who want to harm us.

    Parent
    Jim (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by cal1942 on Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 01:20:19 PM EST
    No one doubts we have enemies who want to harm us.  

    What you can't seem to get hold of is that nations like North Korea, Iraq, Iran, etc.  aren't CAPABLE of harming us.

    That's why so many of us suspect you sleep with a night light.

    Parent

    to me it's not even about capable (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by CST on Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 01:23:49 PM EST
    it's the fact that in the grand scheme of things I'm much more likely to be killed by a falling brick than a North Korean.

    Yet I walk down the street without staring up all the time, because I could also get hit by a car.

    In the grand scheme of "bogeymen" North Korea is somewhere in front of Switzerland, but behind catching a bad cold.

    Parent

    Sh*t... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by kdog on Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 02:25:28 PM EST
    N. Korea trails the US Government, US financial "institutions", and state/local government on my boogeymen chart...they don't even rate.

    Parent
    U.S. gov't and GOP are so worried (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 02:41:56 PM EST
    about Iran going nuke.  What happened re N. Korea?  Why didn't we DO SOMETHING.  

    Parent
    Cuz once they go nuke... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by kdog on Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 02:55:46 PM EST
    invasion is no longer an option.

    I don't think a nuclear Iran scares anybody really, it is not having the option to invade Iran that gets warmongers panties in a bunch.

    Parent

    Study some history (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 04:18:33 PM EST
    Read up about the French not responding to Hitler's first advances... and how if they had Hitler's generals were told to withdraw immediately.

    Kdog, it is possible to be concerned about internal problems and, at the same time, recognize that we also have external enemies.

    Parent

    wake me up (none / 0) (#24)
    by CST on Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 04:42:53 PM EST
    when north korea annexes/successfully takes over south korea.

    Parent
    You just don't get it (none / 0) (#39)
    by cal1942 on Tue Dec 20, 2011 at 04:11:45 AM EST
    And I suggest you read a little more closely and avoid right-wing oriented authors.

    You're missing the whole story.  A risk when you're limited to screeds from agenda promoting right-wing hacks.

    The fall of the Third Republic was very complex.  A France bled white by the first world war was defensive in nature.  That's why they built the Maginot Line.  France's military was run by old men who didn't understand the technology of modern war and was as well riven with right-wingers who were sympatico to Nazis.  There's a lot more to the story of the 'phony war' but your reference to WWII France doesn't apply nor does any other WWII story apply.

    In WWII we were dealing with world class industrial powers.  Today we're dealing with nations that lack the basic heavy industry needed to wage war against a powerful industrial state.  You're losing sleep over weaklings or promoting a ruinous nationalist agenda.

    Parent

    Exactly (none / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 20, 2011 at 10:02:47 AM EST
    A France bled white by the first world war was defensive in nature.  That's why they built the Maginot Line.  France's military was run by old men who didn't understand the technology of modern war

    All they had to do was respond when first pushed..

    But they didn't.

    Today we're dealing with nations that lack the basic heavy industry needed

    Kinda reminds me of our blooming PC causing lack of definitive responses to the WOT and our failure to see it as both an asymmetrical war and what is now an asymmetrical clash of cultures.

    BTW - A discussion over this doesn't mean that either side is "losing sleep." Remarks like that tell me that since you don't have a winning position you are seeking to trivialize my position. Hardly the way to change minds.  

    Parent

    It was not as easy as you make it out to be (none / 0) (#44)
    by nyjets on Tue Dec 20, 2011 at 10:14:46 AM EST
    "All they had to do was respond when first pushed..

    But they didn't."

    The thing you have to realize is that Europe had just finished what was the most destructive war known to Europe. None of the major European powers expected WWI to be as long and destructive as it was. That is why England and France wanted to avoid war at all cost. That is why they believed that Hitler did not want to have a war. The fact that Hitler actually wanted a war (contrary to what a few historians feel) was realized to late by England and France. While England and France did not like Hitler, they believed he was at worst a temporary problem.

    What you also have to realize is that France had problems of their own. WWI had decimated their population. Their government was estentially leaderless. They were in no position to wage any kind of conflict. If they knew Hitler wanted war, they might of acted different.

    Also, you have to realize that from England and France's POV, Germany's demand were not totally unreasonable. Many felt that Germany was punished to much after WWI and felt that some give was in order. They felt that giving in to some demands that were not out of line made sense.

    Did the leaders of England and France make mistakes with respect to Hitler. Yes. BUt  many of those mistakes reguire the use of hindsight which is always 20-20.

    Parent

    Yes, as I noted (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 20, 2011 at 10:17:49 AM EST
    I agree they had problems.

    More socially than militarily.

    Kinda reminds me of us.

    Which was my point.

    Parent

    Is North Korea on our border looking to invade??? (none / 0) (#48)
    by CST on Tue Dec 20, 2011 at 10:22:57 AM EST
    The WW2 parallels don't exist.

    Parent
    Unless you think Canada or Mexico (none / 0) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 20, 2011 at 11:31:17 AM EST
    is about to invade, then your comparison is meaningless.

    The point is the state of the culture on both sides.

    And I think you knew that.

    Parent

    To be fair (none / 0) (#56)
    by jbindc on Tue Dec 20, 2011 at 11:45:57 AM EST
    Within the last year, the Secretary of Defense, representing the views of the administration, opined that N. Korea is a viable threat and would have full nuclear capabilities within 5 years.

    And while North Korea doesn't border the US, as you point out, it does, of course, border South Korea, where they just fired test missiles on the day that Dear Leader died.

    And there was this this:

    In November 2010, the North Koreans showed a visiting American scientist from Stanford University, Siegfried Hecker, an apparently working uranium enrichment plant that the country had been building for years, and that the C.I.A. had missed, though the agency had been right about other secret facilities. The plant gave North Korea a new way to produce nuclear weapons, even as his people fell into another food shortage.

    The same year, the North made two attacks against the South Korean military, sinking a ship and later shelling an island near Northern waters. The episodes caused the United States and South Korea to conduct new joint exercises, even while the Chinese, apparently fearing a complete collapse of the North Korean regime, increased its economic aid.

    And don't think with the death of King Jung-Il, that the folks making the decisions aren't at least a little bit concerned and the world will have to wait and see what China does.

    They may not strike Portland, but to dismiss them as little or no threat is naive.

    Parent

    We are on the verge (none / 0) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 20, 2011 at 10:30:45 AM EST
    of eating good whole food instead of processed foods and then making love with our faces?  Praise the Lord :)

    Parent
    Listen Pal (none / 0) (#65)
    by cal1942 on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 03:00:42 PM EST
    All they had to do was respond when first pushed

    You should really try to get the history straight.

    In the beginning they weren't pushed.  Does 'phony war' ring a bell?

    Parent

    Ah, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 04:15:38 PM EST
    got that all straight.

    Parent
    Don't let facts get in the way of a good story. (none / 0) (#38)
    by Addison on Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 10:51:43 PM EST
    Clinton and Carter?

    North Korea conducted its first nuclear test in 2006. Was Clinton or Carter president in 2006? I forget.

    Parent

    Carter and Clinton..lol (none / 0) (#50)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 20, 2011 at 11:05:02 AM EST
    Yeah, if it weren't for those lilly-livered, liberal appeasers, absolutley every nation on earth would just automatically knuckle under to our mighty empire with fear and trembling.

    Parent
    Are you saying that the world (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 20, 2011 at 11:32:44 AM EST
    would not be a better place if each country was a state????

    Parent
    if every country (none / 0) (#68)
    by jondee on Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 02:25:11 PM EST
    was free of hyper-nationalistic tribalists and so-called "conservatives" embittered because they can't make time, space, and the pursuit of enlightenment stop in their tracks, the world would be a better place.

    Parent
    Hmmm (2.00 / 1) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 04:14:01 PM EST
    Let me see....

    Japan couldn't harm us.

    The Soviets couldn't harm us.

    Iran would never dare seize our embassy.

    Blow up a club with military people in it? Never!

    Put a bomb on a US flag aircraft? Are you nuts!?

    Attack a US ship in a harbor? Of course not.

    Attack the Trade Center??? Gesh! You worry too much!

    Suspect all you wish. I suspect many of you have lost touch with reality.

    Parent

    interesting jim. (none / 0) (#29)
    by cpinva on Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 09:19:09 PM EST
    as usual, you are 100% wrong. something to be said for that level of consistency. i'm not sure what, but something.

    all of the items you note were failures by US intelligence agencies (military & civilian), not the american public. the information was out there, but they either failed to grasp its significance, or chose to ignore it.

    as far as the soviet union is concerned, show me where either the federal gov't, or even a simple majority of the citizenry openly declared that they believed the USSR couldn't directly harm the US.

    perhaps you missed this little thing called "the cold war", between 1945-1989? it was all the rage, made the papers and tv. heck, there were even books and movies using it as a plot line.

    Parent

    I know you're not sure (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 10:02:55 PM EST
    as usual, you are 100% wrong. something to be said for that level of consistency. i'm not sure what, but something.

    So say you?

    all of the items you note were failures by US intelligence agencies (military & civilian), not the american public. the information was out there, but they either failed to grasp its significance, or chose to ignore it.

    And your point is what? Read carefully and you will see that I was pointing out the various attacks that had been ignored/not really paid attention to, etc. I made no call as to who was at fault.

    as far as the soviet union is concerned, show me where either the federal gov't, or even a simple majority of the citizenry openly declared that they believed the USSR couldn't directly harm the US.

    Perhaps you missed "Ho Ho Ho Hi Chi Minh" or "Better Red Than Dead." That seems to me to indicate someone wasn't concerned.

    perhaps you missed this little thing called "the cold war", between 1945-1989? it was all the rage, made the papers and tv. heck, there were even books and movies using it as a plot line.

    Miss it? Nope, I even took an active part. You??
    Of course I'm not sure of what your point is, seeing as how I included the Soviets.

    So have a nice one, cp. I'm glad to give you something to rant about while you demonstrate a remarkable lack of reading comprehension.

    Parent

    what "active part?" (none / 0) (#61)
    by NYShooter on Tue Dec 20, 2011 at 02:48:51 PM EST
    He's just wrong. (none / 0) (#37)
    by Addison on Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 10:45:07 PM EST
    Well, everyone knew Japan was a threat. Same with the USSR. Same with fundamentalists in Iran (it's why we funded the Shah's military). And with overseas venues visited by uniformed members of the armed forces. The WTC, too, was well known as a target. You can't prevent every single attack, and we haven't. Sometimes you get the timing wrong, sometimes you get the place wrong. But the threats absolutely were known and respected as threats.

    So, Jim is just plain wrong on the basic facts of his snark.

    It's also a fact that we have a military industrial complex and a vast series of intelligence agencies to protect us from these threats. I mean, for all the negatives, that's their job. So sitting around as civilians worrying about all these threats and demanding that everyone else worry about them too is useless at best, and at worst is some sort of weird 24 playacting for those without enough drama in their lives. It's just how the Republicans get people to vote for them, scare people into thinking that constant anxiety is equivalent to fighting.

    Parent

    Well yes, this worked so well... (none / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 20, 2011 at 10:08:05 AM EST
    for 9/11...

    It's also a fact that we have a military industrial complex and a vast series of intelligence agencies to protect us from these threats. I mean, for all the negatives, that's their job

    Does the above mean that you want no oversight?? No more "Bush was asleep at the switch???"

    I think it means you know you don't have a supportable position and you seek to trivialize anyone who dares bring the subject up.

    Parent

    9/11 (none / 0) (#51)
    by Addison on Tue Dec 20, 2011 at 11:19:32 AM EST
    Yeah, well, the Bush administration really screwed up on 9/11, I'll give you that. But overall, the plot was designed to (absolutely no pun intended) fly under the radar. We generally knew about the plan to fly planes into buildings and/or use them as weapons. It was an issue of date and time and place -- we didn't know exactly.

    Of course we need oversight, both to spur US action when necessary and prevent it when unnecessary. Constant fear of every .0000001% chance event isn't any sort of useful oversight. It's adrenal gland malfunction.

    As for trivializing things, you're the one that makes "jokes", and then when called on those "jokes", retreats from your narrow point (where your wrong) into broad straw man arguments. I've answered your points, not trivialized them -- that said points were trivial themselves is hardly my problem.  

    Parent

    All attacks by (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 20, 2011 at 11:50:49 AM EST
    asymmetrical forces are designed to fly under the radar.

    As for Bush, Was former Clionton NSA Clarke lying when he said this?

    And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

    So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

    Joke? No. I was pointing out that his older sons were passed by for one he felt would reflect what he wanted done.

    And N Korea under its present leadership is an enemy and recognizing that is not being fearful, etc. anymore than knowing cancer is deadly and we should be aware of the warning signs.

    Just rational self interest, Addison. No big deal... except, apparently, to various folks around here.

    Parent

    Let's ask Clark (none / 0) (#62)
    by Yman on Tue Dec 20, 2011 at 08:50:17 PM EST
    As for Bush, Was former Clionton NSA Clarke lying when he said this?

        And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

        "

    So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda."

    Oh, wait ... he was already asked about this statement during the 9-11 Commission hearings:

    Clarke was asked about his "500% increase statement" at the 9/11 hearings.  He said: "I was asked to make that case to the press. I was a special assistant to the President, and I made the case I was asked to make... I was asked to highlight the positive aspects of what the administration had done and to minimize the negative aspects of what the administration had done."

    IOW - he was spinning in his capacity as a special assistant to Bush.  Guess that explains all the "uh"s in his statement - trying to keep a straight face.

    Heh.

    Parent

    The question is (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 08:20:57 AM EST
    was he lying???

    I was asked to highlight the positive aspects of what the administration had done and to minimize the negative aspects of what the administration had done."

    Note he doesn't say that the five fold comment is untrue.

    And if it's not true, how cam we believe anything he said during/about the Clinton administration and/or the Bush administration?

    Parent

    He wasn't "lying" (none / 0) (#64)
    by Yman on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 09:00:44 AM EST
    He was spinning ... the difference being that he was making statements (under oath) that were technically accurate, but designed to put a "best face" on Bush's anti-terrorism efforts.  You need to look at the words used (and not used) to see if there's much (if anything) you can tell from his statement:

    So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy

    See the emphasis (and hesitation) on when it was decided ("First week in February", "in the Spring")?  He was trying to suggest they immediately decided to add to the Clinton-admin policies.

    ... decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

    He's not saying they increased the budget dedicated to Al Qaeda - or even covert ops in general - by five-fold.  He's saying they "decided in principle" to increase CIA resources in general, then cites covert ops and Al Quaeda ops as examples of things the resources would (presumably) be used for.  This does not mean that CIA resources actually were increased five-fold between the Spring and 9-11.  He does not indicate during what period this "five-fold" increase would take place (1 year, 5 years, 10 years?), or how much (if any) was actually implemented prior to 9-11.  He does not indicate how much of it was used for anti-terrorism issues or Al Qaeda efforts, as opposed to the decision "in principle" to increase "CIA resources" in general.  So while I highly doubt he was "lying" in his testimony, his statements were broad and vague enough to make it sound like the Bush administration was increasing its efforts against Al Quaeda, without actually saying much of anything at all - other than a decision "in principle" to increase CIA resources in general.

    Not to mention the fact that, if counter-terrorism efforts were such a high priority in the pre-9/11 Bush administration, why would they downgrade the position of National Coordinator for Counterterrorism?  Rather than the NCC's memos going directly to the President, they had to pass though a chain of command of National Security Advisor Rice and her deputy Stephen Hadley, who bounced every one of them back.

    OTOH - Clarke was pretty clear in his assessment of the Bush/Al Quaeda efforts when he was no longer Bush's Special Assistant:

    Clarke charged that before and during the 9/11 crisis, many in the administration were distracted from efforts against Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda organization by a pre-occupation with Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Clarke had written that on September 12, 2001, President Bush pulled him and a couple of aides aside and "testily" asked him to try to find evidence that Saddam was connected to the terrorist attacks. In response he wrote a report stating there was no evidence of Iraqi involvement and got it signed by all relevant agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the CIA. The paper was quickly returned by a deputy with a note saying "Please update and resubmit"...

    Clarke made the statement: "There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al-Qaeda, ever."
    Clarke had made clear in his book that this conclusion was understood by the intelligence community at the time of 9/11 and the ensuing months, but top Bush administration officials were pre-occupied with finding a link between Iraq and 9/11 in the months that followed the attack, and thus, Clarke argued, the Iraq war distracted attention and resources from the war in Afghanistan and hunt for Osama bin Laden

    BTW - Clarke's account of the post-9/11 period was corroborated by Marine Lieutenant General Greg Newbold, former director of operations on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and by Army General John Batiste, former commander of the First Infantry Division, who in 2001 and 2002 had been the Senior Military Advisor to Wolfowitz.

    Parent

    Spinning isn't lying???? (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 23, 2011 at 02:49:03 PM EST
    Really???? So what is it?  Shading the truth?

    "Did you rob the bank?"

    "No, I just made an unauthorized withdrawal."

    Wait, if it isn't the truth, what is it? A non-truth???

    So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

    snip

    And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.

    Link


    Parent

    Correct, Jim (none / 0) (#69)
    by Yman on Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 10:03:32 PM EST
    "Spinning" isn't lying, although your example is.

    "Spinning" is putting a "best face" on something while remaining technically accurate.  "Lying" is deliberately presenting a false statement as true.  Clark could be charged with a felony for doing the latter, but charged with nothing for doing the former.

    Not really a difficult concept, but nice dodge.

    Parent

    by "us" (none / 0) (#12)
    by jondee on Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 01:56:18 PM EST
    I think he means us folks at the Heritage Foundation; in which case he's probably right.

    Parent
    No. I mean Jondee and GA (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 04:16:21 PM EST
    for sure...

    Parent
    Having (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 01:35:00 PM EST
    enemies doesn't mean that I have to let them rule my life and live my life in total fear now does it?

    You are letting them rule your life so just make it easy on yourself and live the rest of your life in a bomb shelter.

    Parent

    Good to know, (none / 0) (#18)
    by bocajeff on Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 03:41:27 PM EST
    that you don't lock the doors to your home or car, leave your wallet out, leave your infants alone in the mall, etc...

    Most of us are paranoid to a certain extent, some too paranoid and others not enough...

    Parent

    Sure, because it's either/or (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by sj on Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 05:42:43 PM EST
    Either we live in terror of terrorism or we are so sanguine that we leave our infants alone at the mall?  sheesh

    Being sensible isn't paranoid.  Being paranoid is paranoid.


    Parent

    Omigod (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by shoephone on Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 10:38:39 PM EST
    I forgot to lock up the house last night before I went to bed. And I often leave the car unlocked too. I hope the North Koreans don't nuke me. And believe you me, I'm a lot closer target than most of ya -- I live in Seattle! (gulp!)

    Better go add some canned food to the bomb shelter in my basement.

    Parent

    Recognizing that we have (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 04:21:11 PM EST
    external enemies has nothing to do with your snark.

    And it doesn't mean that those of us who do alive in "fear."

    What it means is that we have some called rational self interest. Obviously you do not.

    Parent

    You sure (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 04:57:40 PM EST
    sound like you live in constant fear with your yammering about this country and that country. That being said, a Cold War mentality that people like you continue to have long after the Cold War is over do more harm than good. Being willing to bankrupt the country and send soldiers off on a fool's errand of trying to control the world has pretty much been shown to be a failure when dealing with today's problems like terrorism.

    Parent
    Yammering? (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 10:07:40 PM EST
    Do you really expect to receive attention and a considered reply after that?

    Of course you don't. Your total intent is to try and deflect any comments that might indicate that your anti-war position has proved throughout history to kill millions of innocent people.

    BTW - Have you ever considered that if you, and those like you, had just been supportive of our efforts the war would not have lasted as long as it did? Didn't the Vietnam conflict teach you anything?

    No, I see it did not. Sad.

    Parent

    Oh good (none / 0) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 20, 2011 at 09:57:45 AM EST
    grief. ROTFLMAO. You are just simply hysterical. Kill millions of people? I guess it's okay if WE kill millions of people. Right? It's the "american exceptional-ism" crap. Well, That's completely irrational and not based on anything except some sort of fantasy. There are wars that are worth fighting and there are wars that are not but apparently to you all wars are worthwhile even if the outcome is abysmal.

    You are failing to deal with the reality of the fact that Vietnam was NEVER a winnable war and instead of accepting that fact you continue to blame someone else for that problem. The problem was it was a guerrilla war and they are almost never won by the invading force. We could still be there and the results would be the same. Just like when Iraq implodes you will see how bad this policy has been.

    Parent

    And your point is what??? (none / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 20, 2011 at 10:15:00 AM EST
    Killing millions of people is bad. But if killing is to be done I want us to be the killers and not the victims.

    Hint: I never wanted us involved in Kosovo. I called by Reps and expressed that point.

    But when the shooting started I shut up and supported my country.

    You don't do that. You want to live here but you want to select what laws you want to follow.

    And Vietnam was very, very, very winnable. The Democrats gave it away after the Left convinced the North Vietnamese that if they just held on we would withdraw.

    Iraq implode?? If it does it will be because Obama has withdrawn all of our troops rather than keeping a small force there as we did in Germany and Korea.

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Addison on Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 06:55:00 PM EST
    Wait, what are we denying again? Because no one denies that "we have enemies".

    But you made a very specific (country and person) statement, not a general statement about enemies. That was what people were reacting, too -- you know all this of course, and are just playing games as per usual.

    Frankly, I think most people thought you were joking with your "Nuke Portland" talk. But apparently you were serious or something akin to serious?

    So since you apparently want to discuss this issue, can you provide a scrap of evidence relating to the Kim brothers and their plans to attack any city at all with nuclear weapons?

    Parent

    Serious? (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 10:10:41 PM EST
    Yes and no.

    No, I don't see that happening in the near future.

    Yes, I believe N Korea would be happy to nuke Portland as they undoubtedly believe we would send Carter over to apologize and arrange to send them some food and fuel.

    And if you don't see that then you haven't been paying attention.

    Parent

    Heh. (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Addison on Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 10:38:42 PM EST
    I'm trying to decide which is more lavishly bizarre as an assertion.

    That North Korea would choose to nuke Portland, Oregon first instead of Tokyo.

    That North Korea would happily nuke Portland, Oregon, even though they haven't during the past 16 years of nuke-related WMD capability (whether reliable nuclear fission weaponry or "merely" dirty bombs).

    That if North Korea nuked Portland Oregon we would send Carter over to apologize.

    I think it's the last one that's the dumbest, if only because of the hack inclusion of Carter as some sort of lazy touchstone. Close race though. Nailbiter.

    Parent

    Hey, I know (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 20, 2011 at 08:34:43 AM EST
    I remember my shock when I heard that the Iranians had seized our embassy... No one would do that!

    And fly airplanes into the Twin Towers??

    Gosh! I mean, really...

    They'd had that capability for years and done a thing.

    Parent

    You're just playing dumb games now. (none / 0) (#52)
    by Addison on Tue Dec 20, 2011 at 11:30:04 AM EST
    I mean, you'd be shocked if Mexico put poison into packs of dehydrated black beans in order to empty the SW US of people so they could invade -- you'd be MORE than shocked. Better invade Mexico, or at least have some airstrikes -- they have the beans and the poison and you'd be shocked, after all!

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 20, 2011 at 11:38:19 AM EST
    Just trying to point out how silly it is for someone to think that all we have to do is just love everybody and they will love us.

    It hasn't worked in the past.

    It isn't working now.

    It won't work in the future.

    And yeah, I was shocked about Iran and 9/11.

    Weren't you??

    Parent

    Yeah, like I said, dumb games... (none / 0) (#57)
    by Addison on Tue Dec 20, 2011 at 11:47:00 AM EST
    Just trying to point out how silly it is for someone to think that all we have to do is just love everybody and they will love us.

    Fine.

    But no one thinks that.

    No one on this site thinks we should, "all we have to do is just love everybody and they will love us". No one is for zeroing out the defense/intelligence budgets or not approaching many global problems with military force.

    You're ranting to a straw man you created so you could rant.

    And that's the dumb game you're playing. Thanks for just coming out and making the whole situation obvious yourself.

    Parent

    being propped up from both sides of the commenters here...

    Parent
    Huh? I just pointed out the obvious (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 20, 2011 at 01:58:32 PM EST
    And the next thing I knew I was being accused of being terminally fearful. All I have done is point out some history.

    That must make some people uncomfortable.

    And no one is for tripling the defense/intelligence budgets.

    Parent

    I think you are right (none / 0) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 10:21:38 PM EST
    And I don't know how we can know and understand so little and be sitting across the DMZ this many years, but that's that.

    Parent
    North Korea (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by NYShooter on Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 03:06:17 PM EST
    Will never attain a position of being a healthy, functioning country capable of competing with the world's family of nations as long as Nepotism is the path they've chosen to follow. Whether it's a country, or a business, nepotism is the ticking, self inflicted time bomb guaranteeing a sub-par, or completely destructive, future.

    There are enough obstacles out there for a country or business to contend with without handicapping itself with the debilitating yoke of nepotism.


    Maybe so. (none / 0) (#17)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 03:11:52 PM EST
    My sense of NK is that Jong-un will have to assert himself pretty heavily in order to actually have the necessary power to rule. Actually, I'd think whoever ends up in power will need to assert themselves heavily...

    Parent
    interesting (none / 0) (#2)
    by CST on Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 10:18:13 AM EST
    that he chose his youngest son.

    As the youngest myself, I approve? (I don't feel confident actually approving of anything North Korea does since wth do I know)

    It was Kim Jong-il (none / 0) (#6)
    by Peter G on Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 01:18:19 PM EST
    who turned NK into a nuclear state, but it was his father, Kim il-Sung, who turned it into a "communist" state.

    The history of Korea is pretty fascinating, (none / 0) (#9)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 01:26:53 PM EST
    a dam tough group of people.

    Background on Kim Jung-Un (none / 0) (#11)
    by jbindc on Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 01:47:05 PM EST
    Maybe? No one really knows - from Foreign Policy in 2009

    According to Kim Jong Il's former personal chef, Kim Jong-un was born in 1983 or 1984 to Kim's third wife, Ko Hyong-hui, and is allegedly his father's favorite son. Unlike his brother Kim Jong-chol, Kim Jong-un has a more forthright character and, some sources say, has exhibited leadership skills. He is rumored to have studied at the International School of Berne in Guemligen, Switzerland. Upon returning to North Korea sometime after 2000, his studies continued, most likely at Kim Il Sung Military University. There are varying reports that he speaks German, French, and English.

    COMMENTS (0)
     SHARE:
    Twitter

    Reddit

    Buzz

     More... Kim Jong-un's career background has been just as opaque. In 2004, reports began to surface that he and brother Kim Jong-chol were accompanying their father on inspections of military installations. In 2007, a flurry of reports emerged placing the third son in either the Korean Workers' Party's (KWP's) powerful Organization Guidance Department, where Kim Jong Il began his career in 1964, or the Korean People's Army's influential General Political Bureau. Both of these bodies are charged with surveillance and monitoring of the regime's powerful party, military, and security bodies.

    There are also reports that Kim Jong-un may share some of the ailments of his father, such as diabetes, and might have been in a car accident last year [2008]. Therefore, his health is in question.

    And of course, it's still unclear what kind of role Un will actually play:

    His father began grooming him for the job only three years ago after suffering a stroke. In contrast, Kim Jong Il himself was groomed over a period of 14 years before taking the reins from his father, Kim Il Sung, in 1994.

    Though Kim Jong Un can boast an array of titles, it's unclear whether he actually has any decision-making authority.

    "I think it's premature to conclude that Kim Jong Un will make all the shots," said Han Park, director of the Center for the Study of Global Issues at the University of Georgia.

    "Kim Jong Un is not going to be expected, nor is he qualified, to make tough decisions. But the party system is there, and the decision-making mechanism that has been established by Kim Jong Il will continue. And therefore the succession process -- even in intermediate terms -- should be smooth," Park said.

    It is likely that Kim Jong Un's uncle, Jang Song Thaek, will rule behind the scenes as Kim Jong Un trains on the job, the global intelligence firm Stratfor said.



    I hope China asserts itself and takes over... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Addison on Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 06:58:19 PM EST
    ...that's North Korea's only real hope: to become a true satellite state of China.

    Hitchens visit (none / 0) (#47)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Dec 20, 2011 at 10:18:12 AM EST
    .

    Hitchens on the Norks

    It is quite a picture he paints.

    .

    PBS Frontline did a show on North Korea (none / 0) (#66)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 09:36:26 PM EST
    several years ago.  If any of y'all ever get a chance to watch it in rerun, do so.