Though he has been on a list of candidates for the post since the beginning of the administration, officials said Mr. Trump has hesitated, in part because of his negative reaction to Mr. Bolton’s walrus-style mustache.
By - The Washington Times - Monday, August 4, 2003
SEOUL — Pyongyang, calling a senior American official “human scum” for criticizing North Korea’s leader, banned him from U.S.-proposed multilateral talks on its suspected development of nuclear weapons.
North Korea said that it won’t deal with U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton because he described communist leader Kim Jong Il as a “tyrannical dictator” and said “life is a hellish nightmare” for many North Koreans.
Mr. Bolton made the remarks during a visit to South Korea last week.
“Such human scum and bloodsucker is not entitled to take part in the talks,” said a North Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman, according to the North’s official KCNA news agency.
“We have decided not to consider him as an official of the U.S. administration any longer nor to deal with him,” the unidentified spokesman said.
Did America just kick itself out of the talks? That's what it looks like.
To be honest, with the kind of people that are still there, I'm not sure that keeping the US out of the talks isn't a good idea to begin with.
it's incredible to me that, after stuff like that, Bolton and people exactly like him* still get treated with anything other than dismissive contempt by any newspaper editor
*
William Krystol is the main one here but you can sub in literally any conservative pundit/intellectual/policy maker, since they're all exactly as incompetent
I mean, Kissinger was still a regular guest in these kinds of circuits, despite being a literal War Criminal. And someone double check to see if Ollie North was a CNN panelist as well
Ollie North is a Fox News talking head.
Yeah and he got his foot in the door by going on CNN because Ailes wasn't sure about him/made the crucial mistake of believing that Things Mattered.
So the DOJ announcement today wasn't about Russia unfortunately, it was about Iranian hackers and Iranian state backed hacking of the US.
Which, will be all the excuse Trump needs to pull out of the Iran deal, and all the excuse John Bolton will need to urge Trump to go to war with Iran.
Between Bolton, this, KSA, Israel, and what I assume is Mattis's Beirut-scented grudge against Iran, the only comfort I can find in this is that Russia likes Iran.
If I had to pick a location for our next conflict, I would choose Lebanon. Attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon will sate those goading us to war on their behalf and, internationally, no one this administration listens to gives a shit about our beef with North Korea.
So the DOJ announcement today wasn't about Russia unfortunately, it was about Iranian hackers and Iranian state backed hacking of the US.
Which, will be all the excuse Trump needs to pull out of the Iran deal, and all the excuse John Bolton will need to urge Trump to go to war with Iran.
Between Bolton, this, KSA, Israel, and what I assume is Mattis's Beirut-scented grudge against Iran, the only comfort I can find in this is that Russia likes Iran.
If I had to pick a location for our next conflict, I would choose Lebanon. Attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon will sate those goading us to war on their behalf and, internationally, no one this administration listens to gives a shit about our beef with North Korea.
I thought Russia only like Iran as long as Iran was a thorn in the US' side.
If the US can be damaged more by attacking Iran, and it most certainly can, Putin's favourite asset might just do it.
Though he has been on a list of candidates for the post since the beginning of the administration, officials said Mr. Trump has hesitated, in part because of his negative reaction to Mr. Bolton’s walrus-style mustache.
I think it was Jon Lovett who said (roughly) that we were one good shave away from invading someone.
So the DOJ announcement today wasn't about Russia unfortunately, it was about Iranian hackers and Iranian state backed hacking of the US.
Which, will be all the excuse Trump needs to pull out of the Iran deal, and all the excuse John Bolton will need to urge Trump to go to war with Iran.
Between Bolton, this, KSA, Israel, and what I assume is Mattis's Beirut-scented grudge against Iran, the only comfort I can find in this is that Russia likes Iran.
If I had to pick a location for our next conflict, I would choose Lebanon. Attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon will sate those goading us to war on their behalf and, internationally, no one this administration listens to gives a shit about our beef with North Korea.
I thought Russia only like Iran as long as Iran was a thorn in the US' side.
If the US can be damaged more by attacking Iran, and it most certainly can, Putin's favourite asset might just do it.
Russia would love to get data of how Iran's air defense network holds up against sustained air attack by current generation US stealth aircraft.
Black lives matter.
Law and Order ≠ Justice
ACNH Island Isla Cero: DA-3082-2045-4142
Captain of the SES Comptroller of the State
The one thing Russian foreign policy has been pretty consistent on is opposition of US military actions in the Middle East. It’s a source of much of the friction between the countries, and it doesn’t look like something that’s going to change anytime soon. Vehemently opposing each other’s wars is just what the US and Russia do.
So the DOJ announcement today wasn't about Russia unfortunately, it was about Iranian hackers and Iranian state backed hacking of the US.
Which, will be all the excuse Trump needs to pull out of the Iran deal, and all the excuse John Bolton will need to urge Trump to go to war with Iran.
Between Bolton, this, KSA, Israel, and what I assume is Mattis's Beirut-scented grudge against Iran, the only comfort I can find in this is that Russia likes Iran.
If I had to pick a location for our next conflict, I would choose Lebanon. Attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon will sate those goading us to war on their behalf and, internationally, no one this administration listens to gives a shit about our beef with North Korea.
I thought Russia only like Iran as long as Iran was a thorn in the US' side.
If the US can be damaged more by attacking Iran, and it most certainly can, Putin's favourite asset might just do it.
Russia would love to get data of how Iran's air defense network holds up against sustained air attack by current generation US stealth aircraft.
While I'm not cynical enough to think Putin would endorse US aggression to test the s-300, I could be convinced that they might see a little more US posturing as a way to upsell them to the s-400s.
The Senate recently voted against restricting the US from its role in abetting Saudi Arabia's destruction of the country of Yemen, 55 to 44 (or voted yea to table the bill, I guess, because the Senate is stupid). The vote was a challenge to the Trump administration's (or the executive's more broadly) ability to unilaterally fight wars, essentially demanding that the US cease direct support for the Saudis against Yemen. But the bill did carve out an exception for the US air war against al-Qaeda in Yemen. The important part of the text:
SECTION 1. Removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities in the Republic of Yemen that have not been authorized by Congress.
Pursuant to section 1013 of the Department of State Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1984 and 1985 (50 U.S.C. 1546a) and in accordance with the provisions of section 601(b) of the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act of 1976 (Public Law 94–329; 90 Stat. 765), Congress hereby directs the President to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities in or affecting the Republic of Yemen, except United States Armed Forces engaged in operations directed at al Qaeda or associated forces, by not later than the date that is 30 days after the date of the adoption of this joint resolution (unless the President requests and Congress authorizes a later date), and unless and until a declaration of war or specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces has been enacted.
In addition to the vast majority of the GOP, I count ten Democratic Senators as voting against the bill (roll call). This vote is inexcusably awful for two reasons: not only is the Yemen bombing campaign horrible and indiscriminate to the point of turning much of the country into cholera-wracked ruin, but opposing the Trump administration's wars (including those inherited from prior administrations) is both a really good idea for humanity and arguably Congress's legal duty.
So the DOJ announcement today wasn't about Russia unfortunately, it was about Iranian hackers and Iranian state backed hacking of the US.
Which, will be all the excuse Trump needs to pull out of the Iran deal, and all the excuse John Bolton will need to urge Trump to go to war with Iran.
Between Bolton, this, KSA, Israel, and what I assume is Mattis's Beirut-scented grudge against Iran, the only comfort I can find in this is that Russia likes Iran.
If I had to pick a location for our next conflict, I would choose Lebanon. Attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon will sate those goading us to war on their behalf and, internationally, no one this administration listens to gives a shit about our beef with North Korea.
I thought Russia only like Iran as long as Iran was a thorn in the US' side.
If the US can be damaged more by attacking Iran, and it most certainly can, Putin's favourite asset might just do it.
Russia would love to get data of how Iran's air defense network holds up against sustained air attack by current generation US stealth aircraft.
While I'm not cynical enough to think Putin would endorse US aggression to test the s-300, I could be convinced that they might see a little more US posturing as a way to upsell them to the s-400s.
With the happy bonus that this then makes it easier for the US to sell the Saudis even more weapons
The Saudis could care less about Trump wanting to go to war with Iran. The weaker Iran is, the easier of a time they'll have controlling the entire region. That's been the whole reason they've been our ally- because the more countries in the mideast we kick the crap out of for reasons, the fewer roadblocks they have to becoming the regional power. And they have the one thing Trump pretty much respects: money.
You'd have to be absolutely insane to put aircraft carriers in the gulf. We all know what happens in the wargames; they get flooded with ballistic missiles.
The sinking of a single US Carrier would be politically unsurviveable. They'd have to strike from the KSA. Have to.
The thing about war with Iran is that you need to actually have boots on the ground if you plan to do anything other then blow shit up and that leads into quite a question of where you'd stage the assault from; Russia would never tolerate american forces anyeher near their borders so that rules out a lot of their former constituents, Turkey is kind of a shit show, Iraq is completely unsecure (and not interested in hosting american forces anytime soon), pakistan and saudi arabia are way too insecure and the gulf is a death sentence.
Bolton, a hawk who Trump named on Thursday to replace H.R. McMaster in the key security role, told Radio Free Asia on Monday that discussions at the proposed summit with Kim Jong Un should be similar to those that led to components of Libya’s nuclear program being shipped to the United States in 2004.
...
“We should insist that if this meeting is going to take place, it will be similar to discussions we had with Libya 13 or 14 years ago: how to pack up their nuclear weapons program and take it to Oak Ridge, Tennessee,” he said.
That’s pretty funny, but might want to ixnay on the Libya model of disarmament. This almost feels like trolling, but I guess that worked out great from a certain perspective.
Bolton, a hawk who Trump named on Thursday to replace H.R. McMaster in the key security role, told Radio Free Asia on Monday that discussions at the proposed summit with Kim Jong Un should be similar to those that led to components of Libya’s nuclear program being shipped to the United States in 2004.
...
“We should insist that if this meeting is going to take place, it will be similar to discussions we had with Libya 13 or 14 years ago: how to pack up their nuclear weapons program and take it to Oak Ridge, Tennessee,” he said.
That’s pretty funny, but might want to ixnay on the Libya model of disarmament. This almost feels like trolling, but I guess that worked out great from a certain perspective.
Remember that guy who gave us his nuclear program, then we blew him up? We want you to do that.
+5
Options
SurfpossumA nonentitytrying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered Userregular
Pyongyang says the fates of the late Libyan leader and Saddam Hussein show the need for a nuclear deterrent
I would not call myself particularly knowledgeable when it comes to global politics, but it's hard to see this [e: Bolton's remarks] as anything but deliberate provocation or a test.
Which I guess are better than... astounding ignorance? Or maybe not. Who knows anymore.
I don't think their has ever been a politician so gifted in diplomacy that they would be able to convince NK to give up their Nuclear weapon's program, particularly not when the US has begun behaving in an unstable warmongering manner.
You might as well ask for the sun and the moon to be served to you on a plate.
Yeah in this case North Korea is taking the sensible strategy of NOT giving up their deterrent arsenal. I doubt that they even needed reminding of the fate of Libya and Iraq, they are a lot of things over there but I would not call them stupid. The best bet that regime has of continuing is to make it too painful to remove them, and they know it. They also likely know that if the regime does fall, it is very unlikely any of the top people survive the aftermath.
I really wish North Korea didn't have nuclear weapons, but they do and they would be fools to give them up. It doesn't matter what offers you give them, they have no reason to believe any agreements will be honored once they don't have their nuclear program.
Israel's ex-defence chief doesn't think this was 'smart'.
A former Israeli defence minister has said that US President Donald Trump's new national security adviser, John Bolton, once tried to convince him to attack Iran.
"I knew John Bolton since he was United States ambassador to the United Nations," Shaul Mofaz, who served as defence chief from 2002 to 2006, told a conference in Tel Aviv on Sunday.
"He tried to convince me that Israel needs to attack Iran," Mofaz said, the Ynet news site reported.
This is terribly unsurprising given Bolton always had a hard on for military action.
Israel's ex-defence chief doesn't think this was 'smart'.
A former Israeli defence minister has said that US President Donald Trump's new national security adviser, John Bolton, once tried to convince him to attack Iran.
"I knew John Bolton since he was United States ambassador to the United Nations," Shaul Mofaz, who served as defence chief from 2002 to 2006, told a conference in Tel Aviv on Sunday.
"He tried to convince me that Israel needs to attack Iran," Mofaz said, the Ynet news site reported.
This is terribly unsurprising given Bolton always had a hard on for military action.
I am already puzzled as to how a US bombing campaign would actually stop the Iranian bomb; I am extra-puzzled by how an Israeli bombing campaign would achieve the same.
I don't think their has ever been a politician so gifted in diplomacy that they would be able to convince NK to give up their Nuclear weapon's program, particularly not when the US has begun behaving in an unstable warmongering manner.
You might as well ask for the sun and the moon to be served to you on a plate.
I mean, it is maybe possible with a truly gifted diplomat. I saw a rather interesting suggestion of negotiating having China place a Garrison in Pyongyang/DMZ as a non-nuclear deterrent to US forces. Similar to how our nominal troop presence are meant as a deterrent to North Korea invading the South. It would put them under China's nuclear umbrella and make an attack by us more suicidal, while reducing the need for nukes that are less stable.
While I think the Libya example is the most compelling for KJU (and I argued it in the previous thread), I do think there is a variable that could potentially change the calculus for the regime. Based on the previous reforms and actions of KJU (agricultural reforms similar to Deng's in the immediate aftermath of Mao's death, how the current cash economy works, the development of a real estate market, how private businesses are being built, KJU maintaining stability of the state employees who work on economic policy while continually cycling through secret police and military leadership) if it's possible that KJU is looking for some way to enter the world economy, and the regime/party feel like they can gamble on an invasion, they could disarm. For these types of regimes, as we and they saw with Libya, the bigger danger to the regime is from internal revolutionary forces. For Libya specifically there was an already internal revolutionary sentiment which was exacerbated by transnational Salafist jihadist involvement. There really isn't an equivalent of that transnational Salafist jihadist movement for North Korea. And I don't think the regime has to worry about an internal revolt from ethnic tension. And if what KJU has allegedly been doing with the police and military leadership is true, and it's successful, that may be another potential source of internal unrest that is preempted.
If that all were to hold true the economic growth would likely soften any anti regime sentiment from the general populace.
+1
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
I don't think their has ever been a politician so gifted in diplomacy that they would be able to convince NK to give up their Nuclear weapon's program, particularly not when the US has begun behaving in an unstable warmongering manner.
You might as well ask for the sun and the moon to be served to you on a plate.
I mean, it is maybe possible with a truly gifted diplomat. I saw a rather interesting suggestion of negotiating having China place a Garrison in Pyongyang/DMZ as a non-nuclear deterrent to US forces. Similar to how our nominal troop presence are meant as a deterrent to North Korea invading the South. It would put them under China's nuclear umbrella and make an attack by us more suicidal, while reducing the need for nukes that are less stable.
Instead we have our current horrible reality.
That'd be a good plan if the US were slightly more stable and if China had some guarantee that NK wouldn't pull some of their stupid shit like kidnapping Japanese civilians or use chemical weapons to assassinate people.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Posts
Really not a good sign.
But on a lighter note:
Yeah and he got his foot in the door by going on CNN because Ailes wasn't sure about him/made the crucial mistake of believing that Things Mattered.
I think the "R" in IOKIYAR needs to be changed from "Republican" to "Russia".
Between Bolton, this, KSA, Israel, and what I assume is Mattis's Beirut-scented grudge against Iran, the only comfort I can find in this is that Russia likes Iran.
If I had to pick a location for our next conflict, I would choose Lebanon. Attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon will sate those goading us to war on their behalf and, internationally, no one this administration listens to gives a shit about our beef with North Korea.
I thought Russia only like Iran as long as Iran was a thorn in the US' side.
If the US can be damaged more by attacking Iran, and it most certainly can, Putin's favourite asset might just do it.
I think it was Jon Lovett who said (roughly) that we were one good shave away from invading someone.
Russia would love to get data of how Iran's air defense network holds up against sustained air attack by current generation US stealth aircraft.
Law and Order ≠ Justice
ACNH Island Isla Cero: DA-3082-2045-4142
Captain of the SES Comptroller of the State
While I'm not cynical enough to think Putin would endorse US aggression to test the s-300, I could be convinced that they might see a little more US posturing as a way to upsell them to the s-400s.
In addition to the vast majority of the GOP, I count ten Democratic Senators as voting against the bill (roll call). This vote is inexcusably awful for two reasons: not only is the Yemen bombing campaign horrible and indiscriminate to the point of turning much of the country into cholera-wracked ruin, but opposing the Trump administration's wars (including those inherited from prior administrations) is both a really good idea for humanity and arguably Congress's legal duty.
Honestly, one of the US sites with more coverage of the efforts to end the Yemen campaign is....Breitbart. MSNBC? *crickets*.
#Resist! Except on the Middle East, there give the DoD more money than what Trump asked.
With the happy bonus that this then makes it easier for the US to sell the Saudis even more weapons
I can't seriously believe any kind of invasion would take place. That'd be insane. The insurgency would make Iraq look like playtime.
Planes and missiles. And probably not even planes. Who in the region will allow the use of their airspace for flyovers?
Another reason to have a healthy State Department: the ability to convince other nations to help.
They wouldn't need to. Iran has a coast in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman.
It would look like three aircraft carriers sank in the first hour, on television, possibly with the president dying.
Would this particular administration even care whether they did?
Naval aviation would not be legitimately enough.
On the other side of the Persian Gulf is Saudia Arabia. Probably the one country that would be OK with the whole shitshow.
I can has cheezburger, yes?
The sinking of a single US Carrier would be politically unsurviveable. They'd have to strike from the KSA. Have to.
I mean, yeah? Did you expect something else?
The american left is not anti-war.
Well, I mean, until you factored in corruption, Saudi influence and Kushner.
The left is divided on wars, a lot of them are isolationist or adjacent to that.
That’s pretty funny, but might want to ixnay on the Libya model of disarmament. This almost feels like trolling, but I guess that worked out great from a certain perspective.
Remember that guy who gave us his nuclear program, then we blew him up? We want you to do that.
I would not call myself particularly knowledgeable when it comes to global politics, but it's hard to see this [e: Bolton's remarks] as anything but deliberate provocation or a test.
Which I guess are better than... astounding ignorance? Or maybe not. Who knows anymore.
But Pyongyang is very good at staying alive.
You might as well ask for the sun and the moon to be served to you on a plate.
I really wish North Korea didn't have nuclear weapons, but they do and they would be fools to give them up. It doesn't matter what offers you give them, they have no reason to believe any agreements will be honored once they don't have their nuclear program.
I am already puzzled as to how a US bombing campaign would actually stop the Iranian bomb; I am extra-puzzled by how an Israeli bombing campaign would achieve the same.
I mean, it is maybe possible with a truly gifted diplomat. I saw a rather interesting suggestion of negotiating having China place a Garrison in Pyongyang/DMZ as a non-nuclear deterrent to US forces. Similar to how our nominal troop presence are meant as a deterrent to North Korea invading the South. It would put them under China's nuclear umbrella and make an attack by us more suicidal, while reducing the need for nukes that are less stable.
Instead we have our current horrible reality.
If that all were to hold true the economic growth would likely soften any anti regime sentiment from the general populace.
That'd be a good plan if the US were slightly more stable and if China had some guarantee that NK wouldn't pull some of their stupid shit like kidnapping Japanese civilians or use chemical weapons to assassinate people.