world

Trump to Kim: 'My nuclear button is bigger,' as talks dismissed

101 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2018 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

101 Comments
Login to comment

I hope SK and NK simply ignore this hysterical little girl.

7 ( +23 / -16 )

It would be fantastic if NK and SK can get to the bargaining table and come to a peaceful resolution. I am a little skeptical of Kim's motives but hopefully they're not malicious.

6 ( +10 / -4 )

Why is it acceptable for the US to have killed millions of Koreans and to have nuclear weapons whereas it is not for North Korea?

Surely, the 'reckless regime' is the US?

1 ( +17 / -16 )

Not sure if anyone is even listening to themselves these days. Haley has been advocating in the UN for the past few months for total isolation of North Korea. Trump as recently as November at the Yokota air base has advocated that he's open to talks with North Korea (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/05/donald-trump-i-would-sit-down-for-talks-with-kim-jong-un). Kim just keeps up the nuclear hellfire of the US banter just to get under Trump's skin.

I'm all for someone doing something to deescalate the situation, even if it's only a bandaid or Dennis Rodman way of starting to deal with the problem. You're not going to make any reach any headway in North / South path taking an East / West approach.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

Why is it acceptable for the US to have killed millions of Koreans and to have nuclear weapons whereas it is not for North Korea?

Surely, the 'reckless regime' is the US?

Because Kim Jung Un has shown that he is insane enough to actually use them.

-7 ( +10 / -17 )

Whatever Trump is doing isn't working. I can understand his desire for his base to blame others, but that won't solve anything, either.

China will continue to prop up NK until it's not in their bests interests to do so. The US should just keep moving heavy weapons into the area until China starts to take notice. If they don't like it....tough. They shouldn't be sending fuel to them.

Russia is a different story. They will also help NK but Trump is so desperate to be on good terms with Russia that Trump won't speak out against them. The only way we can really be on good terms with Russia is to let them have their way so Trump will have to balance letting Putin do what he wants while still trying to find a solution to the NK problem.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

It looks as though "rocket man" has outsmarted the orange deal maker. Who knew diplomacy was so difficult.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

Because Kim Jung Un has shown that he is insane enough to actually use them.

So has Trump.

13 ( +18 / -5 )

It does not matter whether the US will accept a nuclear armed DPRK bevause it is already the reality. For the US to not accept that the DPRK is a nuclear power is for the US to deny reality.

9 ( +13 / -4 )

Tommy.

I hardly post on US politics, etc discussions. Tired of the mud-slinging from all sides.

But you are right NK is a nuclear power now, accept it and move forward.

That genie don't go back in the bottle.

To be honest looking at the last year I got to shake my head at the USA, NK been way more controlled and consistent.

US is the thin-skinned pachyderm in the porcelain shop.

8 ( +11 / -3 )

To be honest looking at the last year I got to shake my head at the USA, NK been way more controlled and consistent.

A year and a half ago, I would have laughed at the idea that this quote could be taken seriously. Now it's reality. What a mess.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

Because Kim Jung Un has shown that he is insane enough to actually use them.

So has Trump.

Please show me when Trump has fired a staff member by killing them with an anti-aircraft gun.

Or assasinated a family member with nerve agent.

Or sentenced a CNN anchor's entire family to hard labor for publicly criticizing him.

Trump is a whacko for sure, but when compared to Kim, he suddenly seems a lot less so.

9 ( +12 / -3 )

Cuba was briefly a nuclear power... And that genii got put back in the bottle. So, there is no need to "accept the reality" of a nuclear North Korea.

2 ( +9 / -7 )

Why hasn't it happened yet?

Cuba and NK are different scenarios.

11 ( +13 / -2 )

They shouldn't be sending fuel to them.

So your solution is to let the masses freeze and starve without fuel? How in any sane world would that reduce animosity?

 So, there is no need to "accept the reality" of a nuclear North Korea.

Accept or not, the genies already in the stratosphere. If pakistan can be accepted despite not being a signatory to the iaea, so can NK.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Pacint:

Agreed. Strange times when the the DPRK is the consistent, stable party and the US is unpredictable. Many would say the unpredictability is a benefit, but that seems to be just an excuse for lack of know-how. Unpredictability impedes movement forward on issues.

Cuba was briefly a nuclear power... And that genii got put back in the bottle. So, there is no need to "accept the reality" of a nuclear North Korea.

Cuba was never a nuclear power. It had nuclear weapons on its soil, but those were always under the control of the USSR. So no, there was never a loose genie that was put back in its bottle.

The DPRK is a nuclear power. That is the reality. Feel free to not accept reality, but it does nothing to address the issue of how to move forward.

13 ( +14 / -1 )

China will continue to prop up NK until it's not in their bests interests to do so. The US should just keep moving heavy weapons into the area until China starts to take notice. If they don't like it....tough. They shouldn't be sending fuel to them.

This seems out of character for you, Super.

You know that the reason the DPRK acquired nukes was as a deterrent to perceived US aggression. If the US sends more heavy weapons to the area, the DPRK will simply continue on its current path. China would probably accelerate its weapons programs.

I'm not convinced China is sending fuel to the DPRK. Certainly companies from China are, but I doubt the government is complicit.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

F. Wallace: It is heart wrenching that innocent people suffer in the DPRK. That said, what are the other less harmful, but realistic options for addressing this situation?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

It would be fantastic if NK and SK can get to the bargaining table and come to a peaceful resolution.

It would be nice, but the reality is, it won't fly. Never has and never will. The North and South will never see eye to eye on issues such as freedom or human rights and Kim's ambition to acquire nuclear weapons, we've been through this time and time again, these talks will fall and fail as well.

I am a little skeptical of Kim's motives but hopefully they're not malicious.

You have a lot of faith and faith is good, but we're talking about Kim.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Here is a question I posed that was never answered:

Glad I left that State, they can keep it and good for the stoners and glad all the sane people are leaving it. California the State of Zombies and entitlements. Good on them. Kudos!

Where did you live in lead-the-nation California, and when did you move? Also, where in California did you live? That State of Zombies smashes any crazy, clearly corrupt kleptocratic con state economically. The numbers don't lie.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

That said, what are the other less harmful, but realistic options for addressing this situation?

Thanks Tommy. In all honesty, seeing as several administrations kicked the can down the road, logical option now is quid pro quo dialogue. If the world can work with nuclear pakistan, it can do the same with NK.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

bass4funkToday 10:11 am JST

The North and South will never see eye to eye on issues such as freedom or human rights

Come on, let's be honest, it has nothing to do with any of that, and nobody cares about it except a couple of NGO ...

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Ambassador Nikki Haley told reporters: "We won't take any of the talks seriously if they don't do something to ban all nuclear weapons in North Korea."

Scoff at talks and sabre rattle instead. Great thinking.

Perhaps the US could ban all its nuclear weapons, if they are going to insist the DPRK does.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

The North and South will never see eye to eye on issues such as freedom or human rights 

I think the majority of Koreans want to see their country re-unified. Those who do will find ways to agree on all issues, political and economic. For decades after the Korean War South Korea was also led by brutal leaders with zero regard for freedom and human rights.

If the majority of Koreans want re-unification, the US, Russia and China need to stand aside.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

F. Wallace: That is the best alternative, but I'm not certain how realistic it is.

It should be noted that Clinton had inspectors on the ground. They were booted after Bush II labeled the DPRK part of the "Axis of Evil."

It's telling how the last republican president and the current one are diminishing the US' standing in the world because they are taking the "we are the strongest nation on earth so everyone should do what we say" approach. We'll need another sophisticated democrat to undo the harm.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

If unification does happen it will be tough more so than the German unification .

But I think it can work without outside pressure/expectations.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I thought Clinton was scary, but she is far worst.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Pacint, how could it be unified though, surely South Koreans don't want to live under NKs rule, and NK isn't going to give up their dear leader. Just a question I don't have an answer.

I again don't know the right path but hope desperately that things clam down.

There is another issue as well, to be a little selfish from Japans point of view, NK provides a barrier between China, Russia and US allied South Korea, for NK to ever consider giving up its weapons, and I would say thats highly questionable, they would demand all US interests out of South Korea.

If this happened it would have to align a unified Korea more closely with China.

This would leave Japan dependent on a foreign nation for its security with ever decreasing interests in the area, and far more powerful neighbors, who haven't always been so fond of Japan.

Japan would then have a very difficult choice to make, try to keep the US alliance, change the constitution to arm itself, or try to make new alliances with China and or Russia. All of these have huge problems.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

We'll need another sophisticated democrat to undo the harm.

Like I said, democrats or republicans, that can was still drop kicked downhill. In my opinion anyone with more than two grey cells to tub together should be able to bring sense to this situation. No matter party affiliation.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

It's telling how the last republican president and the current one are diminishing the US' standing in the world because they are taking the "we are the strongest nation on earth so everyone should do what we say" approach. We'll need another sophisticated democrat to undo the harm.

Our reputation in many countries as a weak nation throughout the last 8 years was taking deep root and making us look like weak, spineless and especially a country that cannot and will not keep it's word or promises and leading from behind, our enemies laughed at us, taunted us and our closest friends lost hope. The only thing that the Democrats can do and will do is capitulate to any adversary and will never back up diplomacy through strength.

I think the majority of Koreans want to see their country re-unified. Those who do will find ways to agree on all issues, political and economic. For decades after the Korean War South Korea was also led by brutal leaders with zero regard for freedom and human rights. 

If the majority of Koreans want re-unification, the US, Russia and China need to stand aside.

North and South Korea under the Kim dynasty will never unify, let's cut through the BS and get out of fantasy land, it won't happen, China won't allow that to happen. Nice dream, but that's all that it is, a dream.

-8 ( +4 / -12 )

Our reputation in many countries as a weak nation throughout the last 8 years was taking deep root and making us look like weak, spineless and especially a country that cannot and will not keep it's word or promises and leading from behind, our enemies laughed at us, taunted us and our closest friends lost hope. The only thing that the Democrats can do and will do is capitulate to any adversary and will never back up diplomacy through strength.

Thats a nice piece of propaganda from Fox, but simply not correct. Bin Laden and drone strikes.

It also does nothing to refute the assertion that the last republican president and the current one are undermining the US' position in the world through the cowboy approach.

North and South Korea under the Kim dynasty will never unify, let's cut through the BS and get out of fantasy land, it won't happen, China won't allow that to happen. Nice dream, but that's all that it is, a dream

Chima would allow this to happen because it would be a country it has sole influence over. Chiba would never allow reunification under the ROK because that would be a US ally. I'm sure that's what you meant though, correct?

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Please show me when Trump has fired a staff member by killing them with an anti-aircraft gun.

Please show me where that is the accepted definition of 'insane enough to do it'.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

North and South Korea under the Kim dynasty will never unify, let's cut through the BS and get out of fantasy land, it won't happen, China won't allow that to happen. Nice dream, but that's all that it is, a dream.

Right, although I think it's more probable than NK giving up its weapon program. As Putin stated, NK will eat grass before giving up on its program. Understandable if they want to keep their sovereignty.

NK is an atomic power now, let's face it and accept it. The only solution is to reduce, control the blockade that currently only starves the population and limit NK's economical growth.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Right, although I think it's more probable than NK giving up its weapon program. As Putin stated, NK will eat grass before giving up on its program. Understandable if they want to keep their sovereignty.

Oh, you are most definitely right about that, the last thing that the north would ever do is give up their nuclear program and to be honest, I don't think the Chinese would encourage such a move truth be told.

NK is an atomic power now, let's face it and accept it. The only solution is to reduce, control the blockade that currently only starves the population and limit NK's economical growth.

Interesting, the SK caught two boats that were exporting oil to the North, if this keeps up and they can can the majority of these illegal sanctioned boats, what will the Chinese say or do?

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

The main issue with Nikki Haley is that she is a bull in a china shop, not a diplomat let alone a 'peace maker'. She also appears to lack cultural sensitivity and doesn't have a coherent or realistic worldview either. The kind of person who thinks adding fuel to the fire is ALWAYS better than listening & temporising. In other words she doesn't belong at a UN peace talks table.

She should run a penitentiary in Alabama or Texas instead.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Yeah, the numbers don't lie

Califirnia is still the premier economic powerhouse of the US and smashes any conservative state economically. The articles you cited do nothing to refute that.

It would behoove some people to stay on point when attempting to argue, lest they want to be looked at as unsophisticated.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Our reputation in many countries as a weak nation throughout the last 8 years was taking deep root and making us look like weak, spineless and especially a country that cannot and will not keep it's word or promises and leading from behind, our enemies laughed at us, taunted us and our closest friends lost hope.

This has been shown to you to be wrong on all counts, backed with numbers. Yet you keep parroting out this same propaganda every time.

Now if you wan to talk reality, right now your country looks weak due to an inept leader. He has shown that American cannot and will not keep its word or promises. Both your enemies AND allies are laughing at you and your choice for a leader. And most of the world has lost hope in the US, and is now creating treaties and agreements that bypass the country.

So the things you claim about the last leadership have not only been proven to be wrong, the things you are claiming are actually happening with the current president.

10 ( +11 / -1 )

Why is it acceptable for the US to have killed millions of Koreans and to have nuclear weapons whereas it is not for North Korea?

What millions of Koreans?

Are ya talking about the Korean War.............. that North Korea started by invading South Korea?

3 ( +6 / -3 )

What is up with you guys and FNC? Oh, that's right, they give an opposing point of view. Lol

Nothing wrong with an opposing view if it sticks to the truth, but Fox "News" reporters lie all the time, and spread propaganda that the president uses as the source of his policies.

And what's with your sudden change of tactics. You have gone on repeatedly about how you hate the MSM, and now you are suddenly defending the MSM. Talk about inconsistency.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

LOL...the whole mine is bigger than your routine is hilarious!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

And something else of his must be smaller, thus the need to over-compensate at every turn.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

John: That was some funny stuff!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Of att the people who should have any control over nuclear weapons, these two would be right down there on my list.

And yet, here we are.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

In 1961 during the Cuban Missile crisis, in one-week tense period, 1/3 of the 31,000 US nuclear warhead was alway in the air ready to go the USSR and 100 going to China. Some were just even handled by Sergeant. Nobody knows how many in the submarine and in Europe ready to be launched. The only instruction is that if and only if there is single nuclear detonation from the USSR.

It was so fortunate the the commander of the USSR submarine did not fire the nuclear torpedo towards the US Navy ASW ships hunting her.

LESSON of the STORY or Lesson to Kim Jung Un ..... never threatened the United States. She is the only one who actually used nuclear.... almost tempted to use it again in 1954 Bien Dien Phu Vietnam, 1968 in the Battle of Khe San Vietnam and in Iraq, had Saddam used Chemical Weapons.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

I never would have thought that a war would be started over one’s button size, but here we are...

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Trump said: "North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the 'Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times.'

True.

"Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!"

Also true.

South Korea has responded positively to Kim's overture, suggesting Jan 9 as a date for rare talks aimed at easing tensions on the Korean Peninsula.

But the U.S. questioned whether talks could be taken seriously.

Yes, that, too.

Trump's not wrong, is he?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

We got a bonafied poet in our midst. Fox News is like the tide refilling the swamp in the moonlight! LOL

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Trump's nuclear button must seem much larger because of his tiny hands.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

I am sick and tired of that blabbering oaf making up this fuzz. If NK had the bomb WE WOULD KNOW IT. We have satellites that would show all we need to know. A test would be done. That's how we learned that China, India and Pakistan have the Bomb. I am sick to death of all this hysteria. The greatest enemy to the world today is Donald Trump, and he is a satellite to the whims of Vladimir Putin.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Reminds me of 'Genesis - Land of Confusion'.

Big button, small button same in the end = human suffering and more.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

NK strategy:

“All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.” hmmm, sounds familiar over the last 25 yrs and more so during the recent admin in NK.  1 am, 3am 5 am missile testing etc, fly overs Japan by NK, yet talk and talk, sanctions and sanctions, now more talk with SK, sure keep talking but on the flip side, they still continue to build build build meaning, stalling for time. 

China/Russia Strategy working with NK:

“If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected .”

Hence the division in Okinawa, the Japan SK alliance using the comfort woman angle etc...does it all make sense now?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I am sick and tired of that blabbering oaf making up this fuzz. If NK had the bomb WE WOULD KNOW IT. We have satellites that would show all we need to know. A test would be done.

They already do pretty much. They just need to improve their reentry guidance systems on the rocket. Where were you a few months ago? I don' think the Pentagon would be worrying if you were right and by the way, Trump doesn't come to these conclusions, his secretary of defense does.

That's how we learned that China, India and Pakistan have the Bomb. I am sick to death of all this hysteria. The greatest enemy to the world today is Donald Trump, and he is a satellite to the whims of Vladimir Putin.

No, the greatest threat right now in the world is that little guy on the North side of South Korea and a very, very good reason to be concerned. Personally, I could care less what the world thinks, I'll follow the warnings of the Pentagon and go from there.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Is Nikki trying to show cleavage with that pullover gap? Either way, she always has that maniacal haughty look on her face. She's a Trump puppet and a hysterical shrieker, unworthy to be the ambassador for anything.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Nikki is a loudmouth shrew.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

My ego and big mouth are bigger than yours. 2 arrogant 5th grade level bullies.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Hah! Me, two days ago:

katsu78Jan. 1  05:28 pm JST

...When penile insecurity is made to be a centerpiece of a country's foreign policy strategy over sustainable, reasoned, diplomatic pressure, it's only natural that citizens of that country should not understand what foreign words like "status quo" mean.

Today, Trump says:

I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!

We don't have rational foreign policy, we have a President who is terrified that the world isn't impressed by the size and power of his "button".

What a total buttonhead!

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Trump doesn't come to these conclusions, his secretary of defense does.

Incorrect. The Director of National Intelligence comes to these conclusions, not the Secretary of Defense.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

US is the thin-skinned pachyderm in the porcelain shop.

The majority of US voters voted for Trump's opponent.

So, don't blame an entire country for the thin-skinned pachyderm currently occupying the White House.

He's already broken a ton of porcelain in the US that will take years to repair. Hopefully, it appears we can begin in November of 2018.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Trump's not wrong, is he?

Almost 100% of the time. Why?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Because Kim Jung Un has shown that he is insane enough to actually use them.

America: the only country that has mass murdered civilians with nuclear weapons. Twice. As well as bombing innocent civilians throughout Vietnam, Korea, Cambodia, Laos, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. The United States has also killed many of its own citizens through nuclear testing.

https://qz.com/1163140/us-nuclear-tests-killed-american-civilians-on-a-scale-comparable-to-hiroshima-and-nagasaki/

What millions of Koreans?

Are ya talking about the Korean War..............

The U.S. bombing campaign in Korea killed approximately 3 million Koreans. Air Force general Curtis LeMay, head of the strategic air command during the Korean War, estimated that the American campaign killed 20 per cent of the Korean population.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/asia-pacific/unknown-to-most-americans-the-us-totally-destroyed-north-korea-once-before-1.3227633

4 ( +6 / -2 )

She's a Trump puppet and a hysterical shrieker, unworthy to be the ambassador for anything.

1001 times better than that Susan Rice and the best part is, not only does she look better, but she doesn’t have to lie either.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

BurningBush: "I hope SK and NK simply ignore this hysterical little girl."

Well, I have to admit I never thought I'd hear you calling Trump a hysterical little girl, but there you go. THat's progress! And yes, here's hoping they ignore Trump's ranting and maniacal ravings.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

THat's progress! And yes, here's hoping they ignore Trump's ranting and maniacal ravings.

But the South Koreans should fall for the ploy of Kim?

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Wondering when Kim will now shows us a picture of his button alongside an opened tape-measure, just to show us how big it is... and then what Trump will do next.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Trump's still showing off how much of an idiot he is. Thanks again 'Murica for having the people being represented by an ass.

I don't think capitulation is needed in this situation, but a much wiser hardline approach is needed than, "Mine's is bigger than yours...."

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Why is it acceptable for the US to have killed millions of Koreans and to have nuclear weapons whereas it is not for North Korea?

What millions of Koreans?

Are ya talking about the Korean War.............. that North Korea started by invading South Korea?

The U.S. bombing campaign in Korea killed approximately 3 million Koreans. Air Force general Curtis LeMay, head of the strategic air command during the Korean War, estimated that the American campaign killed 20 per cent of the Korean population.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/asia-pacific/unknown-to-most-americans-the-us-totally-destroyed-north-korea-once-before-1.3227633

(Btw, nice of ya to delete the part where I wrote that North Korea started the Korean War by invading South Korea, but that's a major plot point, so I put it back in)

Anyways, that article mentions that 3 million deaths - but it didn't say that all 3 million was the result of the US bombs

Here's another link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_in_the_Korean_War

Casualties

The Korean War was relatively short but exceptionally bloody compared to other wars. Nearly 3 million people died. More than half of these, about 10 percent of Korea’s pre-war population were civilians.

Nearly 10,000 North and South Korean soldiers were also killed in battle before the war even began. North Korean casualties amount at around 600,000 civilians and 406,000 soldiers.

It mentions that 3 million deaths too, but here's the breakdown:

600k civilians + 406k soldiers = 1.06 million North Korean deaths

3 million - 1.06 million = 1.94 million deaths on the UN/South Korea/US side

So NK killed more South Koreans than UN/SK/USA killed North Koreans (and 406k of those are NK soldiers, so that's fair game on the battlefields)

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Who knew Kim and Trump would be a hit comedy team?!

2 ( +3 / -1 )

They if they're having dialogue again, despite whatever motives Kim has, it's still much better than threatening or fighting. The Trump administration seem to not like this, I wonder why?

By the way, I don't think Trump's little fingers can handle that big button of his.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

US: "It's very simple -- it is OK for our country to have nuclear weapons, but it is not OK for your country to have them. See?"

NK: You're not very bright, are you?"

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Please show me when Trump has fired a staff member by killing them with an anti-aircraft gun.

Please show me where that is the accepted definition of 'insane enough to do it'.

So you find this an action of a sane leader? This is just one of the many clearly homocidal actions Kim Jung Un has taken during his reign, and you don't find the fact that he murders the subordinates who disappoint him a little worrisome when he suddenly has access to functioning weapons of mass destruction?

Kim has clearly demonstrated his penchant for violence with murder and assassinations, while Trump makes stupid midnight Tweets. Anyone who claims they are more worried about what Trump will do more than what Kim Jung Un will do is in denial or delusional.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Cuba was briefly a nuclear power. you mean the Soviets were the nuclear power with their weapons in Cuba, NK has its own nukes without any foreign powers permission to keep them , big difference.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his

This kind of talk gives Trump supporters a collective chubby.

Our reputation in many countries as a weak nation throughout the last 8 years was taking deep root and making us look like weak, spineless and especially a country that cannot and will not keep it's word or promises and leading from behind, our enemies laughed at us, taunted us and our closest friends lost hope.

Many of us on the left feel that way about Trump, lol. And anyway our group is bigger than your group, and our dads are way stronger than your dads.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

And anyway our group is bigger than your group, and our dads are way stronger than your dads.

So we're down to 'My dad can beat up your dad' now? This is why I was happy to have been leaving the country during the election. Both sides of the political spectrum are obnoxious children.

A literal madman has his hands on nuclear weapons and no one on the left or the right can admit that their own great leaders aren't perfect. Trump's a loon. Obama was weak on foreign policy. Everyone before Trump was weak on North Korea and the result stands before you. We wouldn't be where we are now if one single president had bothered to say 'No, bad Kim. Go to your room.' decades ago.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

I think this is one of the best responses ever made by a president. I'm sure Kim thought the response was going to be the typical "ok,ok...let's talk". Kim needs a reality check. The US is the big dog; the US does have the most and biggest nuclear weapons; and the US is the only country with a track record of using them. Trump should've sent him a photo greeting for with pictures of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

... Anyone who claims they are more worried about what Trump will do more than what Kim Jung Un will do is in denial or delusional.

Another and simpler way to put it is they're liberal.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

So you find this an action of a sane leader?

Not really. Questions have been raised about Trump's mental capacity, and there are plenty of questions as to whether he is in the midst of early-onset Alzheimer's.

you don't find the fact that he murders the subordinates who disappoint him a little worrisome when he suddenly has access to functioning weapons of mass destruction?

Not really. Un kills them - nothing happens. Un attacks anyone, his country gets destroyed, and more importantly to him, he loses power. He's not going to attack anyone unless attacked... Which brings us back to Trump, who's ego is bigger than his logic center, and may very well attack.

Anyone who claims they are more worried about what Trump will do more than what Kim Jung Un will do is in denial or delusional.

Not at all. Un is a third-generation dictator, and wants to retain power. War will relieve him of power. Trump on the other hand will likely be able to retain power IF he starts a war (Americans don't like to change presidents mid-war). Look at their motivations - only one of them benefits if there is a war.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

.....was in reference to Kim's annual New Year address in which he warned he has a "nuclear button" on his table, but sweetened his remarks by expressing an interest in dialogue and taking part in the Pyeongchang Games next month.

Kim Jong-Uno chose to threatened the world with the "nuclear button" that is constantly on his table.

Trump responded in kind. In language that even a deranged bully like Kim Jong-Uno could understand. A U.S. SELF-DEFENSE response can completely destroy Kimmy and his whole play army.

The U.S. does have a larger nuclear arsenal, AND it does work. As long as Kim doesn't START a nuclear war, he should live to a very old age.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

So you find this an action of a sane leader?

Not really. Questions have been raised about Trump's mental capacity, and there are plenty of questions as to whether he is in the midst of early-onset Alzheimer's.

you don't find the fact that he murders the subordinates who disappoint him a little worrisome when he suddenly has access to functioning weapons of mass destruction?

Not really. Un kills them - nothing happens. Un attacks anyone, his country gets destroyed, and more importantly to him, he loses power. He's not going to attack anyone unless attacked... Which brings us back to Trump, who's ego is bigger than his logic center, and may very well attack.

Anyone who claims they are more worried about what Trump will do more than what Kim Jung Un will do is in denial or delusional.

Not at all. Un is a third-generation dictator, and wants to retain power. War will relieve him of power. Trump on the other hand will likely be able to retain power IF he starts a war (Americans don't like to change presidents mid-war). Look at their motivations - only one of them benefits if there is a war.

So you are ok with a leader who has proven time and time again that he has no problem using violence against his own people, as long as he doesn't do anything to anyone else, but are worried about an elected leader who makes bad speeches. That doesn't seem strange to you?

You are making a lot of assumptions about Kim's intentions, all the while forgetting that the Kim regimes have actually attacked South Korea on multiple occasions in the past. I really hope you are right, but I'm not going to deny that we need to be prepared for the chance that you are wrong.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

You are making a lot of assumptions about Kim's intentions, all the while forgetting that the Kim regimes have actually attacked South Korea on multiple occasions in the past.

There have been a few volleys fired. As can be clearly seen, it did not lead to a full-on attack, and when all was said and done, the Kim's retained power. That would not happen if they launched a full scale attack, which they clearly know. What I said still stands.

I really hope you are right, but I'm not going to deny that we need to be prepared for the chance that you are wrong.

As long as by 'being prepared', you don't mean starting the conflict. Getting ready for it's potential only makes sense. But once Trump starts it, he makes America the bad guy he is trying to frame N. Korea as.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

smithinjapanJan. 3  09:01 pm JST

BurningBush: "I hope SK and NK simply ignore this hysterical little girl."

Well, I have to admit I never thought I'd hear you calling Trump a hysterical little girl, but there you go. THat's progress! And yes, here's hoping they ignore Trump's ranting and maniacal ravings.

Like we should all ignore the rantings and ravings of Trump's online supporters here and on other sites. There are intelligent conservatives with intelligent things to say, but if there are any here they're keeping quiet. An "Ignore" function would be the best thing for the rest, it's certainly not worth spending any time or effort in engaging in any sort of discourse with them.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

@lostrune2

Approximately 3 million deaths in Korea were the results of US bombs. Here is a wikipedia link with supporting references cited:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Pyongyang

It mentions that 3 million deaths too, but here's the breakdown:

600k civilians + 406k soldiers = 1.06 million North Korean deaths

3 million - 1.06 million = 1.94 million deaths on the UN/South Korea/US side

So NK killed more South Koreans than UN/SK/USA killed North Koreans (and 406k of those are NK soldiers, so that's fair game on the battlefields)

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_in_the_Korean_War

Sorry, but no reputable historian has cited your exact "breakdown".  Your linked wikipedia article's casualty figures include no supporting references.

Air Force general Curtis LeMay, head of the strategic air command during the Korean War, estimated that the American campaign killed 20 per cent of the Korean population. (Btw, I note that you deleted the part where I wrote about Curtis LeMay, but that's a major plot point, so I put it back in.)

What millions of Koreans?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/asia-pacific/unknown-to-most-americans-the-us-totally-destroyed-north-korea-once-before-1.3227633

Anyways, that article mentions that 3 million deaths - but it didn't say that all 3 million was the result of the US bombs

Demonstrably false. The article states that 3 million deaths were the result of US bombs.

Are ya talking about the Korean War.............. that North Korea started by invading South Korea?

That's hardly a thorough analysis of the conflict's beginnings now is it?

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2013/07/28/who-really-started-the-korean-war/

Additionally, America has been occupying and invading Korea since 1871...

https://www.thehistoryvault.co.uk/the-american-invasion-of-korea-nope-not-the-one-in-the-1950s-the-one-in-1871/

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@lostrune2

Correction:

The "reputable" historian Allan R. Millet is the source for your casualty "breakdown". However, he has relied on unnamed/unreferenced "U.S. and South Korean" sources for North Korean casualties while citing unnamed/unreferenced South Korean sources for South Korean casualties. Somewhat dishonest or merely poor scholarship?

Taewoo Kim's three million figure appears more reliable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Pyongyang

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14672715.2012.711980

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Trump to Kim. My brain is smaller than yours. So take that.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Trump is actually a good president, but he needs to learn that you don't compare d*ck sizes and you don't need to take credit for everything.  he should just shut up and do his job.  His MAGA site should do the speaking for him.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

'My nuclear button is bigger,' but oh how small your hands are Mr Trump

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

 the US does have the most and biggest nuclear weapons; wrong again, Russia has slightly more nukes at around 7000, had around 40000 during the peak of the cold war, 7000 more than the US. Soviets had the largest ever Nuclear bomb (Tsar) at 100MT but reduced to 50MT to reduce fallout. See America isnt the only superpower as they continue to pretend they are.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

See America isnt the only superpower as they continue to pretend they are.

In terms of money, influence, aid we send, patents we create, technology that we export, food, produce, overall military might, financial markets, yeah, we pretty much are.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

In terms of money, influence, aid we send, patents we create, technology that we export, food, produce, overall military might, financial markets, yeah, we pretty much are.

Nah, you're pretty much a third world country these days, due to the greed and lack of vision from both your Dems and Repubs.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-developing-nation-regressing-economy-poverty-donald-trump-mit-economist-peter-temin-a7694726.html

You have to rely on dodgy partners like Saudi Arabia whilst you wasted billions on the folly of wars, pointless prohibition of marijuana and making people homeless. Whilst all the time rewarding the rich and big corporations.

No wonder Kim laughs at the US.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

In terms of money, influence, aid we send, patents we create, technology that we export, food, produce, overall military might, financial markets, yeah, we pretty much are.

Exactly. Trump is right: people are so use to America taking care of them that they actually bite the hand that feed them. America could and would've bombed everyone to smitherines if weren't for the weak (aka: socialist and neo-liberals) whose only recourse is "morality"; not strength. No one, especially not North Korea, can match the US. America can simply bomb everybody; but can you imagine the public outrage?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

No wonder Kim laughs at the US.

Yes, yes. Laughter is a weapon we all should fear.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

if Kim starts lobbing nukes you'll be the first crying to America for protection

He'll be lobbing them at the US definitely, maybe also South Korea and Japan, following provocation by Trump. Why would that make the 'socialist democratic' countries of Europe cry for protection?

Yeah, we have our problems

Oh yeah for sure....

the ones who "take the moral high ground" are the weakest and despised by nature. I thank god I'm from the big 50

...a major problem being the inability to see the conflict between despising 'the moral high ground' in one breath and giving thanks to the (presumably) omniscient, omnipotent, turn-the-other-cheek, love-thy-neighbour-as-thyself god in whom the US trusts in the next breath.

deep in your heart you know America is the number one country

Number one in citizen incarceration rates: economic inequality: gun ownership per capita: military spending; capacity to elect morons to the top office while telling themselves it's democracy.

Thirty-first in life expectancy; fifth in under-five mortality rate.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Number one in citizen incarceration rates: economic inequality: gun ownership per capita: military spending; capacity to elect morons to the top office while telling themselves it's democracy.

I'm sorry, did I hit a nerve? The point is, Kim can yakity yak all he wants, and so can the rest of the world for all I care. If you don't like America, it's president, and her politics, what are you going to do besides hurl insults and wage a moral campaign?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Mr. NoidallToday  02:12 pm JST

America could and would've bombed everyone to smitherines if weren't for the weak (aka: socialist and neo-liberals) whose only recourse is "morality"; not strength. 

It sounds a bit like you think America should've bombed everyone to smitherines.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

It mentions that 3 million deaths too, but here's the breakdown:

600k civilians + 406k soldiers = 1.06 million North Korean deaths

3 million - 1.06 million = 1.94 million deaths on the UN/South Korea/US side

So NK killed more South Koreans than UN/SK/USA killed North Koreans (and 406k of those are NK soldiers, so that's fair game on the battlefields)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_in_the_Korean_War

Sorry, but no reputable historian has cited your exact "breakdown". Your linked wikipedia article's casualty figures include no supporting references.

Air Force general Curtis LeMay, head of the strategic air command during the Korean War, estimated that the American campaign killed 20 per cent of the Korean population. (Btw, I note that you deleted the part where I wrote about Curtis LeMay, but that's a major plot point, so I put it back in.)

Actually, that breakdown has been cited in other reputable publications too.

How about the Encyclopedia Britannica:

https://www.britannica.com/event/Korean-War

https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/99/72799-004-37459A7C.gif

Battle casualties of the Korean War (1950-53)

North Korea

600,000 Civilian dead and missing

406,000 Military killed and missing

1,500,000 Military wounded

Student-learning website Shmoop has other estimates:

https://www.shmoop.com/korean-war/statistics.html

Population of North Korea in 1950: 9 million [even using LeMay's 20% killed - 20% of 9 million is only 1.8 million]

Population of South Korea in 1950: 21 million

Estimated strength of the North Korean army in 1950: 135,000 men

Estimated strength of the South Korean army in 1950: 95,000 men

Estimated number of Chinese and North Koreans killed in the Korean War: 1,500,000 [that's even combined with China]

This research aid website has it even breakdown country-by-country:

https://www.historyguy.com/korean_war_casualties_and_statistics.htm

North Korea - Dead 215,000-350,000 - Wounded 303,000 - MIA/POW 300,000 - Total over 900,000

Or how about a compilation of multiple sources side-by-side:

https://www.globalresearch.ca/know-the-facts-north-korea-lost-close-to-30-of-its-population-as-a-result-of-us-bombings-in-the-1950s/22131

North Korea:

   NoKo Military

       130,000 KIA (Pentagon: ¼ “KWM”)

       294,151 (Nahm93)

       214,899 KIA + 101,680 MIA (Wallechinsky; Clodfelter, citing [“highly suspect”] Defense Dept. est.) [=316,579]

       316,579 (COWP)

       350,000 (Rummel)

       520,000 (Small & Singer, FAS)

*      * [MEDIAN: 316,579]

   NoKo Civilian

       406,000 killed + 680,000 missing (Nahm93)

       Up to 1,000,000 (Wallechinsky; Clodfelter)

       1,185,000 (Rummel)

*       *[MEDIAN: 1,000,000]

   NoKo Military + Civilian

       500,000 (Britannica)

       700,000 (Dictionary of 20C World History)

       926,000 (Compton’s)

       1,316,579 (Wallechinsky; Clodfelter)

       1,380,151 (Nahm93)

       1,535,000 (Rummel)

*       *[MEDIAN: 1,316,579]

So that's a multiple different sources and estimates - none close to 3 million North Korean deaths (Also: soldier deaths should be separate from civilian deaths since soldiers fight with expectations they could die - lumping both soldiers and civilians deaths together is not very useful). It's not unheard of that yet an U.S. General was embellishing their power, especially in the middle of conflicts.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/asia-pacific/unknown-to-most-americans-the-us-totally-destroyed-north-korea-once-before-1.3227633

Anyways, that article mentions that 3 million deaths - but it didn't say that all 3 million was the result of the US bombs

Demonstrably false. The article states that 3 million deaths were the result of US bombs.

No, it doesn't. Here's the article's paragraph verbatim:

"The result was perhaps three million dead and, the museum recalls, the first US armistice in history signed without a victory. In three years of fighting a single major city changed hands: Kaesong, which is now the last vestige of a once hopeful détente with the South."

Perhaps? With no source cited? Perhaps?

Perhaps less than 3 million died. Perhaps not all 3 million was the result of US bombs. Perhaps anything is possible; after all, it's perhaps.

Are ya talking about the Korean War.............. that North Korea started by invading South Korea?

That's hardly a thorough analysis of the conflict's beginnings now is it?

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2013/07/28/who-really-started-the-korean-war/

And Hitler didn't start WW2 because Germany was pushed to the brink by the unfair Treaty of Versailles.

No, no, whatever the justification, as long as negotiations could have avoided the hostilities, the invader is responsible. Like in a battle of verbal arguments, whoever throws the first punch violated one's personal space.

Additionally, America has been occupying and invading Korea since 1871...

https://www.thehistoryvault.co.uk/the-american-invasion-of-korea-nope-not-the-one-in-the-1950s-the-one-in-1871/

That's one incident. That's like saying America has been occupying and invading Japan since 1853 when Commodore Perry threatened them with black war ships. No, no, "has been" implies continued regular activities. One incident does not imply "has been" - rather that's another embellishment. Even your article states that Korea closed out America's failure:

"The Americans expected that this would force the Koreans to the negotiating table. However the Koreans had the last laugh. Despite being humiliated militarily, they not only did not apologise, they refused to speak to any member of the US government for the next two years and maintained its isolationist policy (only thawing a little to Japanese trade)."

Taewoo Kim's three million figure appears more reliable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Pyongyang

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14672715.2012.711980

Can't read it - it's behind a subscription wall

0 ( +1 / -1 )

In terms of money, influence, aid we send, patents we create, technology that we export, food, produce, overall military might, financial markets, yeah, we pretty much are. all that tech and money hasnt stopped Russia taking over Syria Crimea,Gerogia doesnt need a massive military when its only got it borders to worry about. As WW2 has taught us you dont need the highest tech weapons to beat superior military . Russian can annihilate the US just as well as the US can do Russia, yes it most certainly is a superpower can and does handle anything the US throws at it.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

technology that we export, food, produce, overall military might, Russia is one of the few countries thats could close its borders tomorrow and continue to feed its population supply all its own energy needs, supply it own mineral resources etc can continue to function without any outside assistance, like to see the US try and do that. LOL

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Or how about a compilation of multiple sources side-by-side:

https://www.globalresearch.ca/know-the-facts-north-korea-lost-close-to-30-of-its-population-as-a-result-of-us-bombings-in-the-1950s/22131

North Korea:

NoKo Military

130,000 KIA (Pentagon: ¼ “KWM”)

294,151 (Nahm93)...........................

      *[MEDIAN: 1,316,579]

Your article is from the Centre for Research on Globalization, which publishes conspiracy theories. The author, Mr. Chossudovsky is a notorious conspiracy theorist. The figures he cites are poorly referenced. What is Nahm93? Any ideas.....

So that's a multiple different sources and estimates - none close to 3 million North Korean deaths

Figures cited from a conspiracy website are not convincing.

Actually, that breakdown has been cited in other reputable publications too.

How about the Encyclopedia Britannica:

https://www.britannica.com/event/Korean-War

https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/99/72799-004-37459A7C.gif

What other publications besides Britannica? The "reputable" historian Allan R. Millet is the only source for your casualty "breakdown". Your initial wikipedia link cites Millet's Encyclopedia Britannica article. However, Millet has relied on unnamed/unreferenced "U.S. and South Korean" sources for North Korean casualties while citing unnamed/unreferenced "South Korean" sources for South Korean casualties. Somewhat dishonest or merely poor scholarship?

(Btw, I note you have tried to avoid the the previous post regarding Millet, but that's a major point, so I put it back in.)

Student-learning website Shmoop has other estimates:

> https://www.shmoop.com/korean-war/statistics.html

Hardly a definitive history as it only relies on one historian's estimates for their figures.

Population of North Korea in 1950: 9 million [even using LeMay's 20% killed - 20% of 9 million is only 1.8 million]

Exactly, even LeMay admitted to murdering a staggering 1.8 million people. To call it "only 1.8 million" is quite astonishing.

This research aid website has it even breakdown country-by-country:

https://www.historyguy.com/korean_war_casualties_and_statistics.htm

An amateurish website focusing on "comic book and superhero history" does not inspire confidence at all. Additionally, there are no citations.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/asia-pacific/unknown-to-most-americans-the-us-totally-destroyed-north-korea-once-before-1.3227633

Anyways, that article mentions that 3 million deaths - but it didn't say that all 3 million was the result of the US bombs

Demonstrably false. Here are the article's 3 consecutive paragraphs verbatim:

"Many of these atrocities refer to what Blaine Harden, author and former Washington Post reporter, recently called a “long, leisurely and merciless” US bombing campaign: well over half a million tons of bombs dropped, napalm and chemical weapons deployed, cities levelled.

“Although the ferocity of the bombing was recognised as racist and unjustified elsewhere in the world,” says Harden, for many Americans it was just another conflict in a distant and poorly understood country, he concludes. Not for nothing is it called the forgotten war.

The result was perhaps three million dead and, the museum recalls, the first US armistice in history signed without a victory. In three years of fighting a single major city changed hands: Kaesong, which is now the last vestige of a once hopeful détente with the South."

Perhaps? With no source cited? Perhaps?

Source with citation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Pyongyang

Perhaps less than 3 million died. Perhaps not all 3 million was the result of US bombs. Perhaps anything is possible; after all, it's perhaps.

No one can say with exact certainty how many people were killed in the Holocaust. Often the word "perhaps" is used. It is a slippery slope to Holocaust denial.

And Hitler didn't start WW2 because Germany was pushed to the brink by the unfair Treaty of Versailles.

Straw man. No one on this thread is arguing about the origins of WW2.

https://www.thehistoryvault.co.uk/the-american-invasion-of-korea-nope-not-the-one-in-the-1950s-the-one-in-1871/

That's one incident. That's like saying America has been occupying and invading Japan since 1853 when Commodore Perry threatened them with black war ships. No, no, "has been" implies continued regular activities.

Your own words are most appropriate here:

No, no, whatever the justification, as long as negotiations could have avoided the hostilities, the invader is responsible. Like in a battle of verbal arguments, whoever throws the first punch violated one's personal space.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14672715.2012.711980

Can't read it - it's behind a subscription wall

This one isn't:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Pyongyang

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Or how about a compilation of multiple sources side-by-side: https://www.globalresearch.ca/know-the-facts-north-korea-lost-close-to-30-of-its-population-as-a-result-of-us-bombings-in-the-1950s/22131 North Korea: NoKo Military 130,000 KIA (Pentagon: ¼ “KWM”) 294,151 (Nahm93)........................... *[MEDIAN: 1,316,579]

Your article is from the Centre for Research on Globalization, which publishes conspiracy theories. The author, Mr. Chossudovsky is a notorious conspiracy theorist. The figures he cites are poorly referenced. What is Nahm93? Any ideas.....

Hmmm.... couldn't find much on that neither, but that's why having multiple sources helps. Nevertheless, none of those different sources and estimates are close to 3 million

Student-learning website Shmoop has other estimates: https://www.shmoop.com/korean-war/statistics.html Hardly a definitive history as it only relies on one historian's estimates for their figures.

That's why we're citing multiple sources - isn't that what we're doing, so we don't rely on just one

Population of North Korea in 1950: 9 million [even using LeMay's 20% killed - 20% of 9 million is only 1.8 million] Exactly, even LeMay admitted to murdering a staggering 1.8 million people. To call it "only 1.8 million" is quite astonishing.

Context please - "only 1.8 million" as in relation to your 3 million. 1.8 million is definitely a lot of people, but that's still not even close to 3 million

The median cited earlier was about 1.3 million. So LeMay's 20% is even closer to the cited median than the 3 million you proclaim, so the median is more believable, even taking LeMay's boast

Also, people's estimates of total deaths in the Korean War range from 3.5 million to 4.5 million, with 2.5 million to 3 million of those being North Korean soldiers and civilians, like this for example:

http://www.kwvdm.org/war.php?p=statistic

A 3 million death by the US would mean, taking out the North Korean soldiers count, that nearly 100% of civilian deaths would be by the US alone. That does't sound logical, especially with North Korea and then when later China joined in too with mass soldiers fighting.

And furthermore, LeMay's boast counts all Koreans. So he's counting not just civilians but North Korean soldiers too - which doesn't make sense. North Korean soldiers were intended to be killed in their battles against the UN allies - why put them together with civilians. One is intentional; the other isn't

Anyways, that article mentions that 3 million deaths - but it didn't say that all 3 million was the result of the US bombs Demonstrably false. Here are the article's 3 consecutive paragraphs verbatim:

I think you missed the point - the point wasn't that the US was responsible for many deaths. The point was by saying "perhaps," the one being quoted was guessing by how much, particularly when the one quoted didn't cite a source

Perhaps? With no source cited? Perhaps? Source with citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Pyongyang

Yes, that's your source (which the Irish Times article didn't cite, btw)

Perhaps less than 3 million died. Perhaps not all 3 million was the result of US bombs. Perhaps anything is possible; after all, it's perhaps. No one can say with exact certainty how many people were killed in the Holocaust. Often the word "perhaps" is used. It is a slippery slope to Holocaust denial.

The 3 million was not about the Holocaust - the 3 million number was about the Korean deaths we're discussing

And Hitler didn't start WW2 because Germany was pushed to the brink by the unfair Treaty of Versailles. Straw man. No one on this thread is arguing about the origins of WW2.

You missed the point here too - I wasn't arguing about the origins of WW2. In fact, I'm referring to the opposite - that Nazi Germany did begin WW2, just like North Korea did begin the Korean War - no arguments there

https://www.thehistoryvault.co.uk/the-american-invasion-of-korea-nope-not-the-one-in-the-1950s-the-one-in-1871/ That's one incident. That's like saying America has been occupying and invading Japan since 1853 when Commodore Perry threatened them with black war ships. No, no, "has been" implies continued regular activities. Your own words are most appropriate here: No, no, whatever the justification, as long as negotiations could have avoided the hostilities, the invader is responsible. Like in a battle of verbal arguments, whoever throws the first punch violated one's personal space.

Again, you missed the point here too. The point was not that America wasn't responsible for the invasion - they were. The point was your using of "has been" which implies that America was continually and regularly doing it - which they were not.

So no, America was not "America has been occupying and invading Korea since 1871" as you said. America attacked Korea in 1971 - but America has not been occupying and invading Korea since 1871 - that's a big difference

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14672715.2012.711980 Can't read it - it's behind a subscription wall This one isn't: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Pyongyang

Cool, that's a source from you I can read. Any other sources? After all, multiple sources help so that we don't rely on one

So far, most sources and estimates put the North Korean and civilian deaths around 1-1.5 million, not 3 million

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Or how about a compilation of multiple sources side-by-side: https://www.globalresearch.ca/know-the-facts-north-korea-lost-close-to-30-of-its-population-as-a-result-of-us-bombings-in-the-1950s/22131 North Korea: NoKo Military 130,000 KIA (Pentagon: ¼ “KWM”) 294,151 (Nahm93)........................... *[MEDIAN: 1,316,579]

..... none of those different sources and estimates are close to 3 million

I think you missed the point. Multiple figures cited by a conspiracy theorist are not convincing. Here is the background on your source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky

Population of North Korea in 1950: 9 million [even using LeMay's 20% killed - 20% of 9 million is only 1.8 million]

The United States Census Bureau estimates that the Population of North Korea was approximately 9.5 million in 1950. (The exact figure cited being 9.4714 Million) 20% of that figure is approximately 1.9 million.

Context please - "only 1.8 million" as in relation to your 3 million. 1.8 million is definitely a lot of people, but that's still not even close to 3 million

Exactly. In any context the murder of 1.9 million people is a staggering figure.

The median cited earlier was about 1.3 million. So LeMay's 20% is even closer to the cited median than the 3 million you proclaim, so the median is more believable, even taking LeMay's boast

You cited a conspiracy theorist for your proclaimed median. You're welcome to find it believable. That LeMay's figure is a "boast" is your opinion.

And furthermore, LeMay's boast counts all Koreans.

That it's a "boast" is your opinion. That it counts all Koreans does not lessen the gravity of the killings.

So he's counting not just civilians but North Korean soldiers too - which doesn't make sense. North Korean soldiers were intended to be killed in their battles against the UN allies - why put them together with civilians.

Again, your opinion. We're discussing the death toll and casualties of all Koreans.

I think you missed the point - the point wasn't that the US was responsible for many deaths. The point was by saying "perhaps," the one being quoted was guessing by how much, particularly when the one quoted didn't cite a source

I think you missed the point - Often the word "perhaps" is used when reporting massive death tolls. It is a slippery slope to Holocaust denial.

Perhaps? With no source cited? Perhaps? Source with citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Pyongyang

Yes, that's your source (which the Irish Times article didn't cite, btw)

A source easily available to anyone with a web connection including the Irish Times journalist.

The 3 million was not about the Holocaust - the 3 million number was about the Korean deaths we're discussing

I think you missed the point - No one can say with exact certainty how many people were killed in the Holocaust. The same is true in Korea.

And Hitler didn't start WW2 because Germany was pushed to the brink by the unfair Treaty of Versailles.... I wasn't arguing about the origins of WW2. In fact, I'm referring to the opposite - that Nazi Germany did begin WW2, 

You missed the point here too - no one on this thread is arguing about the origins of WW2. It's irrelevant to this thread.

just like North Korea did begin the Korean War -

That's hardly a thorough analysis of the conflict's beginnings now is it?http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2013/07/28/who-really-started-the-korean-war/

The point was your using of "has been" which implies that America was continually and regularly doing it - which they were not.

Straw man, "continually and regularly" is not stated. You have attempted to infer such an implication.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Pyongyang

Cool, that's a source from you I can read. Any other sources? After all, multiple sources help so that we don't rely on one

Here are some more in addition to the others I have already mentioned:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/01/world/asia/korean-war-history.html

http://www.calvin.edu/news/2001-02/korea.htm?dotcmsredir=1

Towards a Victimology of State Crime - Google Books

Specific quote from the above cited book:

https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=r7UoDAAAQBAJ&pg=PT172&lpg=PT172&dq=bruce+cumings+korea+death+million&source=bl&ots=awKJfpjlD4&sig=xHLTe8U-9hVKVqk3v5q-rsvJ5m4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjuvpn50sXYAhUFOrwKHVRfATE4ChDoAQgsMAE#v=onepage&q=bruce%20cumings%20korea%20death%20million&f=false

http://apjjf.org/-Marilyn-Young/3125/article.html

So far, most reliable sources and estimates put the American military causing Korean deaths numbering around 2-3 million, not 1-1.5 million

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Back on topic please.

Correction

Population of North Korea in 1950 according to the United States Census Bureau:

Exact figure cited: 9.47114 million

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites