Mocking Summit Talks with North Korea
Media scoundrels cheerlead Washington’s imperial agenda, its wars of aggression, its rage for global dominance – ignoring the human cost of its ruthlessness.
A state of war between the US and DPRK has existed between both countries since an uneasy armistice ended the early 1950s Korean War.
For decades, Pyongyang wanted normalized relations, rebuffed by Washington, the DPRK falsely blamed for US hostility toward its country.
Trump earlier threatened to destroy it. His rage for endless wars of aggression suggests a durable peace on the Korean peninsula may be an unattainable dream – the fault lying in Washington, not Pyongyang.
The NYT is militantly hostile toward sovereign independent governments Washington opposes, notably ones it’s waging war against.
Its editors disgracefully called Kim Jong-un “a murderous ruler of a brutally isolated state who will do anything to retain absolute control…”
He’d be foolhardy to abandon the nation’s nuclear deterrent, developed solely because of feared US aggression – for defense, not offense.
Nine nations have nuclear weapons, including Israel, North Korea the only one punished by Washington and the international community – for pursuing the right of self-defense.
Throughout its post-WW II history, it never attacked another nation. In June 1950, it justifiably responded to multiple South Korean cross-border attacks, orchestrated by Washington.
Over three years of devastating war followed, US-initiated naked aggression, around 30% of its population killed, much of the country reduced to smoldering rubble.
Pyongyang wants another war avoided, one potentially more devastating than earlier if launched.
Washington demands the DPRK abandon its nuclear and ICBM programs. It’ll likely only agree to suspend them, wanting its capabilities retained as the only key deterrents against feared US aggression – no matter what Trump or any future US administration may agree to.
America can never be trusted, consistently saying one thing, doing another, breaching countless agreements since the beginning of the republic – against its native people and foreign nations.
Ahead of his appointment as national security advisor, John Bolton said a Kim/Trump summit would fail, preemptive US aggression perhaps to follow.
The Times resident neocon extremist columnist Bret Stephens headlined a commentary “Kim Jong-un Sells a Peace Bridge,” saying:
He “has a peace bridge he’d like to sell you,” a contemptuous remark.
Stephens falsely blamed the DPRK for the failed 1994 Agreed Framework – breached in 2002 by Bush/Cheney, not Pyongyang.
He shamefully blamed North Korea for other failed talks between both countries. Unacceptable US demands no governments would accept were responsible.
Stephens: “(I)t’s Kim’s turn to play the game of escalate-and-conciliate/cheat-and-repeat…We’ve already seen the escalation” – referring to earlier nuclear and ballistic missile tests now halted.
As CIA director, Pompeo called for regime change in less than so many words, saying DPRK leadership should be separated from its nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities.
According to Stephens, “(n)egotiations (with Kim, Assad, or other leaders Washington opposes) dignif(ies) and legitimize(s),” something he opposes.
He’s against withdrawing US forces from South Korea, Syria, and likely everywhere else.
Stephens: A peninsula peace deal “would advance a central aim of North Korean and Chinese foreign policy by undercutting the rationale for maintaining sizable US forces in South Korea,” adding:
“(I)t will be tragic to watch another administration being played by Pyongyang. Better advice for the White House: If you have no good options, stick to the status quo. It’s served us well enough for 65 years.”
War is peace, a notion all hawkish right-wing extremists espouse – conflict resolution fundamentally opposed.
It’s bad for business and US quest for global dominance.
My newest book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”