September 22, 2017

The horror of communicating with North Korea when its language translation is as wretched as the new statement from Kim Jong-Un shows it is.

I'm seeing a lot of focus on Kim Jong-Un's use of the word "dotard" to insult Donald Trump,* and it is indeed a powerfully distracting word. But what's really important here is the entire statement and how much it says about the quality of the translation between Korean and English within Kim's regime and what that might mean about how he hears what our government is saying to him.

Here's the full text, "released on Friday by KCNA, the North Korean state news agency." According to the NYT is "the first time a North Korean leader directly issued a statement to the world under his name."

I'm going to go through it line by line, because I want you to see the crudeness of the translation and try to imagine what was in the original that a more skilled translation might have revealed. I'll boldface egregious translation problems and put my own suggestion in brackets:
The speech made by the U.S. president in his maiden address on [in] the U.N. arena in the prevailing serious circumstances, in which the situation on the Korean Peninsula has been rendered tense as never before and is inching closer to a touch-and-go state, is arousing worldwide concern.
I suspect this tracks the word order in Korean, but it sounds very awkward in English. The huge distance between the subject ("speech") and the verb ("is") comes across as bizarre.
Shaping the general idea of [Imagining] what he would say, I expected he would make stereotyped [scripted], prepared remarks a little different from what he used to utter in his office [the way he tends to speak from the White House] on the spur of the moment as he had to speak [because he was speaking] on the world’s biggest official diplomatic stage.

But, far from making remarks of any persuasive power that can be viewed to be [as] helpful to defusing tension, he made unprecedented rude nonsense one has never heard from any of his predecessors [spoke rude nonsense of a sort that the world has never before heard from a U.S. President].

A frightened dog barks louder.

I’d like to advise Trump to exercise prudence in selecting words and to be considerate of whom he speaks to [of those to whom he speaks] when making a speech in front of the world.

The mentally deranged behavior of the U.S. president openly expressing on [in] the U.N. arena the unethical will to “totally destroy” a sovereign state, beyond the boundary of threats of regime change or overturn of social system [which goes beyond threats of regime change or threats to overturn the social system], makes even those with normal thinking faculty [those of us who are sane] think about [begin to lose our] discretion and composure.
Here's another wide separation of subject ("behavior") and verb ("makes"). I think he's saying Trump's behavior is so crazy that normal people are about to lose our minds.
His remarks remind me of such words as “political layman” and “political heretic” which were in vogue in reference to Trump during his presidential election campaign.
The quoted phrases were not in vogue in English. I think we're getting a translation back into English of something that began in English. I'm not sure exactly what. "Heretic" is an especially vivid word in English. What was the original word in English? What is the Korean word, and what does it mean? How does the idea expressed in Korean relate to the way the North Korean leader understands politics? That's a complete mystery to me, and I wonder how much of a mystery it is to Trump (who, I suspect, gets very quickly to a simple understanding of other people).
After taking office Trump has rendered the world restless through [destabilized the world with]  threats and blackmail against all countries in the world. He is unfit to hold the prerogative of supreme command [leadership] of a country, and he is surely a rogue and a gangster fond of playing with fire, rather than a politician.
"Gangster" — what does that mean to him?
His remarks which described the U.S. option through straightforward expression of his [straightforward remarks about what the U.S. may do] will have [have]** convinced me, rather than frightening or stopping me, that the path I chose is correct [the path I have chosen is correct] and that it is the one I have to follow to the last [it is the path I must follow to the end].
Now that Trump has denied the existence of [denied the legitimacy of] and insulted me and my country in front of the eyes of the world and made the most ferocious declaration of a war in history that he would destroy [and threatened to destroy] the D.P.R.K. [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea], we will consider with seriousness [seriously consider] exercising of a corresponding, highest level of hard-line countermeasure in history [an equally high-level, hard-line response].

Action is the best option in treating the dotard who, hard of hearing, is uttering only what he wants to say.
"Dotard" is, actually, fine. It's a simple, memorable word that is less childish than "old man" or "geezer." I'm interested in the idea that a person who is hard of hearing says only what he wants to say, but I think he means: The old man doesn't listen, he just keeps talking, so there's little point in trying to talk to him, and our best option is to act.
As a man representing the D.P.R.K. and on behalf of the dignity and honor of my state and people and on my own, I will make the man holding the prerogative of the supreme command in the U.S. pay dearly for his speech calling for totally destroying the D.P.R.K.
That sentence works in English. It's a clear threat. More subtle are the hints of how he sees himself: he represents his "state and people" and he also acts "on my own."
This is not a rhetorical expression loved by Trump [I know this is not what Trump is hoping to hear].
I'm not going to tamper with the last 3 sentences. They come across as clear and very effective in English (thought obviously I hope he's bluffing).
I am now thinking hard about what response he could have expected when he allowed such eccentric words to trip off his tongue.

Whatever Trump might have expected, he will face results beyond his expectation.

I will surely and definitely tame the mentally deranged U.S. dotard with fire.
___________________

* To give one example, the NYT has an entire article "Kim Jong-un Called Trump a ‘Dotard.’ How Harsh Is That Burn?"

** In the comments to this post, Ignorance is Bliss says (correctly): " I think you are mistaken about the word will. It is used as a noun (his will), not as part of a verb (will have)." A good word editor would see ambiguity like that and rearrange the sentence to eliminate it.

171 comments:

Now I Know! said...

I am sure within hours Trump will find a way to out crazy him.

rhhardin said...

Dotard should be said with an accented -tard to give Kim full credit.

Michael K said...

I wonder if Kim knows English. He speaks with Dennis Rodman.

Do they use translators then ?

rhhardin said...

Things were much clearer when everybody spoke French.

Nonapod said...

Apparently Korean is an Subject–object–verb (SOV) language.

Kevin said...

There are plenty of people in the world who can translate Korean. Why not simply release the original remarks and let people with knowledge of Korean discuss his original words and their meaning.

rhhardin said...

Chouraqui, word for word translation as Cicero said should not be done:

Here are the sons of Shem for their clans, for their tongues, in their lands, for their peoples. Here are the clans of the sons of Noah for their exploits, in their peoples: from the latter divide the peoples on earth, after the flood.

And it is all the earth: a single lip, one speech. And it is at their departure from the Orient: they find a canyon, in the land of Shine'ar; They settle there. They say, each to his like: "Come, let us brick some bricks. Let us fire them in the fire." The brick becomes for them stone, the tar, mortar. They say: "Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower. Its head: in the heavens. Let us make ourselves a name, that we not be scattered over the face of all the earth.

YHWH descends to see the city and the tower that the sons of man have built. YHWH says: "Yes! A single people, a single lip for all: that is what they begin to do! . . . Come! Let us descend! Let us confound their lips, man will no longer understand the lip of his neighbor."

YHWH disperses them from there over the face of all the earth. They cease to build the city. Over which he proclaims his name: Bavel, Confusion, for there, YHWH confounds the lip of all the earth, and from there YHWH disperses them over the face of all the earth.

- Des Tours de Babel

Wilbur said...

Now I Know! said...
I am sure within hours Trump will find a way to out crazy him.

_______________________________________________________________________________
This has to rank in the top 5 of the stupidest comments I've read on this site.

rehajm said...

We'd be doing this kindof parsing every morning if Hillary had won.

tcrosse said...

Grading papers must be a hard habit to break.

rhhardin said...

Then there's Kim Chee, the artistic arrangement of cabbages.

Kevin said...

I think this exactly what Trump expected. He knows he's dealing with an unstable individual and would rather push Kim to a confrontation now than to allow him to slowly build his nuclear arsenal and delivery capability over time.

You have to understand the ultimate recipient of Trump's remarks and actions is Iran. If Trump can't deal with Rocket Man, he gives the green light to the Mullahs to follow his path.

bgates said...

It's necessary for only one side to have competent translators, though. If DPRK also released its statement in Korean, I'm sure the State Department could render it into grammatically pristine, rhetorically unhinged prose. State should also be able to come up with a way to say "Rocket Man" in Korean, though without the Elton John overtones (unless Kim knows the song).

tcrosse said...

Then there's Kim Chee, the artistic arrangement of cabbages.

Then there's Kim Novak, the artistic arrangement of flesh.

rehajm said...

Now I'm ready for the Romans Go Home analogy.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

His remarks which described the U.S. option through straightforward expression of his [straightforward remarks about what the U.S. may do] will have [have] convinced me...

I think you are mistaken about the word will. It is used as a noun ( his will ), not as part of a verb ( will have ).

David said...

1. The personal characterization of Trump is pretty much stolen from the American left.
2. Trump has gotten his attention.
3. Force is supposedly the only language Kim really understands. Likely that is also being mistranslated in NK.

Paul said...

Trump needs to do like Teddy Roosevelt did in 1904.

Just send simple statement like... "Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead!"

That would be hard to misinterpret.

Robert Cook said...

I actually enjoyed the presence of the no longer commonly used word "dotard."

Lyle Smith said...

I bet anti-Trumpers start using dotard. Anti-Trumpers agreeing with Korean Hitler... Trump wins.

Rusty said...

Kevin @ 9:29He seems to have gotten the attention of Russia and China as well.
However some very smart people have assured me we are wasting our time debating the wisdom of confronting either N Korea or Iraq.

Ray - SoCal said...

Capitalists are all gangsters by the lefts definition.

Michael K said...

You have to understand the ultimate recipient of Trump's remarks and actions is Iran.

Also the warlords in North Korea who probably have more sense of self preservation than Kim does.

I've wondered for years about who is really the power there

tcrosse said...

'Dotard' is ever so much nicer than 'Alter Kaker'

walter said...

"He disrespected the Dong! I will drop the hammer with arm! It is time to Hammer!!"
Gosh.."Dotard" will surely enter toothless' ageist rotation.

I was wondering how the Altparse would go on this. Interesting take.
I was holding this for a cafe, but it kinda dovetails with this:
Iran TV translator mocked for watering down Trump speech

jwl said...

I taught english in south korea for eighteen months and that translation is pretty good for closed north korean. To me, that translation reads like someone who was fluent in english maybe ten years ago but is slowly losing their skills over the years. English and Korean grammar much different, if they were doing straight translation between two languages you would know it because it would make no sense at all.

I am not too worried about sabre rattling between North Korean and America just yet, a lot of words being said but little action, which is good. I am Canadian who was born in 1970, sounds similar to rhetoric of cold war.

I think prof Althouse was nitpicking a bit, the translator has a boss who knows exactly what he wants to say to world and doesn't care if it sounds 100% correct in english.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

This is not a rhetorical expression loved by Trump [I know this is not what Trump is hoping to hear].

I think this one may be off a bit: I'd translate it as:
"I'm not just using empty rhetoric like Trump loves to do, I really/literally mean these words/what I'm saying here."

AllenS said...

Fuck off, Jongie.

Robert Cook said...

"I think this exactly what Trump expected. He knows he's dealing with an unstable individual and would rather push Kim to a confrontation now than to allow him to slowly build his nuclear arsenal and delivery capability over time."

How do you know Kim is unstable? Just because he is a cruel and murderous tyrant does not mean he is unstable. We're also supposed to accept the common assertions that the leaders of Iran are suicidal religious maniacs, (i.e.,"unstable"), who will sacrifice themselves and all in their country to achieve...what? Nothing they have done suggests the Iranian leadership are suicidal or unstable. To the contrary, they appear to be completely rational actors. These assertions of "instability" applied to those we proclaim our enemies are meant for American consumption, the better to have us accept as true the so-far baseless idea that there is no other option but to preemptively take them out to save ourselves. As with any war our leaders want for their own reasons, we, the people must be softened up, tenderized, filled up with fear (and its conjoined twin, hate), so we will comply with or actively cheer on their wars.

Herman Goering, interviewed during the Nuremberg trials:

"Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

(Interviewer): "There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

Goering: "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

Yes, that it does.

walter said...

jwl said... the translator has a boss who knows exactly what he wants to say to world
--
Translate like your life depends on it...

jwl said...

"...makes even those with normal thinking faculty [those of us who are sane] think about [begin to lose our] discretion and composure."

Korean culture, also China and Japan, are very reserved, similar to middle class WASP but even more so. Some Koreans can make an up tight WASP seem like libertine with how tightly they wound.

For my work, I have colleagues in Japan and South Korea who I am in regular contract with and they have no idea to what to make of President Trump. Blowhard property developer from New York is not something they know how to reckon with - they could relate to President Bush and Obama - but this president is bewildering.

Kim could just be saying that President Trump should handle himself better, not be so vulgar.

Fernandinande said...

Our house bear thang, you buy now!

Rob said...

Given Kim's hatred of Trump, his wild invective and his questionable command of English, he is eminently qualified to become a columnist for The New York Times.

Michael K said...

Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany.

Goering was talking about WWII.

In WWI, the Germans marched off to war singing. Many historians have remarked on the different attitudes of Germans as the two wars began.

Robert Cook said...

"For my work, I have colleagues in Japan and South Korea who I am in regular contract with and they have no idea to what to make of President Trump...this president is bewildering."

This bewilderment is not limited to the Koreans and Japanese.

"Kim could just be saying that President Trump should handle himself better, not be so vulgar."

That's actually my sense of what he was saying...with some Trump-like insults thrown in.

Robert Cook said...

"Goering was talking about WWII."

What he said is applicable to every war, and his statement was a general statement, not meant to apply only to the war just ended.

We have seen the truth of his remarks in every war we have been involved with or started since WWII.

walter said...

Blogger Robert Cook said...
These assertions of "instability" applied to those we proclaim our enemies are meant for American consumption, the better to have us accept as true the so-far baseless idea that there is no other option but to preemptively take them out to save ourselves.
--
We've seen this approach buy the Left re: TRUMP!.
Iran may be "rational", but an agreement with them is worthless.

jwl said..Korean culture, also China and Japan, are very reserved
--
Ah..how does "dotard" jive with respect for elders? Maybe if fat boy was more "reserved"...

Robert Cook said...

"Iran may be 'rational,' but an agreement with them is worthless."

Why? How do you know?

HoodlumDoodlum said...


Kevin said...You have to understand the ultimate recipient of Trump's remarks and actions is Iran.

You have to understand that the ultimate recipient of SecState Clinton and President Obama's brilliant strategy and actions in Libya--where we supported the overthrow and laughed about the killing of a relatively-stable dictator who had cooperated with us by turning over material and otherwise ending his WMD program--were people like the current leaders of N. Korea & Iran.
Ain't nobody gonna fall for the "if you give up your WMDs and act nice towards us we won't take overt actions to help you get overthrown and painfully killed" routine any more.

Sebastian said...

"this president is bewildering" Which is good. But I don't think he is quite so bewildering to either China or NK anymore. Which is also good.

Kevin said...

How do you know Kim is unstable?

Because he is testing unproven ICBMs by launching them over the sovereign nation of Japan.

Robert Cook said...

Asserting--without evidence--that "An agreement with (fill in the blank) is worthless" is another way of saying the opposing party is "unstable" or "untrustworhy," just another way to rationalize throwing aside all attempts at diplomatic and peaceful resolutions to disputes in order to make room for the war option. Such statements betray the thinking of a party already planning how it can violate the agreement and stab the opposing party in the back. It's one of the elements used by a state that, as per Goering, wishes to drag its people along to war.

buwaya said...

This is pretty normal for North Korean statements I think.
A lot of it is standard boilerplate - "gangsters", etc., which is leftover Cold War stuff - the Soviets were fond of "hooligans". I think their translators are the same old institutional gang, and they have a stylesheet.

The only unusual bits are the personal attribution to the boss and the personal complaints about Trump. I guess Trump's personal insults had to be answered likewise.

Sebastian said...

@Cook. et al.: "Iran may be 'rational,' but an agreement with them is worthless." Why? How do you know?"

Sure, O tried to shift the burden of proof by making a deal, and shoveling money at Tehran, but Americans concerned about American interests will put the burden of proof back where it belongs. The question remains: why is the deal worthwhile in the first place? If it is, why is it not a treaty, duly approved by the Senate? Why is the deal not even a formal agreement, but an artfully labeled "Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action"?

The agreement is worthless for reasons already discussed in this thread: the overriding interest for any rogue regime eager to stay in power is to get nuclear weapons, particularly after O and Hill focused their minds in Libya. Pacta sunt servanda pales by comparison.

bagoh20 said...

Kim is part of the swamp and sounds like it. Drain the swamp.

As for Kim's remarks, I read the original, and I'm fluent in both Korean and Asshole. The cleanest translation is: "Make America Great Again", and near the end, "I love Taylor Swift."

Robert Cook said...

"'How do you know Kim is unstable?'

"Because he is testing unproven ICBMs by launching them over the sovereign nation of Japan."


You can think of no alternative possibilities? Perhaps he wants to demonstrate (or convince us of) his (in truth, so-far paltry) capabilities to forestall any plans for military aggression against NK. In the animal kingdom, displays of one's size and fearsomeness are intended to deter competitors/predators from starting a fight.

buwaya said...

But there is evidence - Iran has no intention of abandoning its nuclear ambitions because it has firmly stuck to retaining the means to ramp up quickly - a sincere government would have offered to dismantle Bushehr for instance, a facility useful only for enriching nuclear material. Which is ridiculously inappropriate for peaceful uses of nuclear power on the scale that makes sense for Iran. India and China and Japan could justify it on their scale of use but not Iran.

traditionalguy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
buwaya said...

That doesnt pass the smell test.
NK really has been left alone to fester for decades at a time, with NK initiating strategic trouble only toward the end of the 1990s, blatantly as a shakedown for tribute from SK.

The Godfather said...

The phrase "hydrogen bomb" doesn't appear in this passage, but more important than all the childish insults.

traditionalguy said...

That's strong stuff. He accused the Dotard of saying only what he wants to say. In other words, Trump did not surrender to Rocketman's threats to use his Chinese furnished Hydrogen Bombs on his Chinese furnished ICBMs.

Seriously, neither leader's statement wordings were attempts to communicate to the other one. They were only meant for reading by those watching from the grandstand,such as the Norks allies, Iran and China.

The real question is why Mattis has let this standoff go on this long. Do the special forces have a plan ready to assassinate the Rocket Man. DJT just changed Obama's restraint on military use of special ops raids without hands on White House control. I suspect that was at Mattis's request.

Michael K said...

Perhaps he wants to demonstrate (or convince us of) his (in truth, so-far paltry) capabilities to forestall any plans for military aggression against NK.

He is acting like the guy in the old Jack Benny routine. "Your money or your life !"

What Kim wants is loot. He lives off it. He sells weapons to Iran. NK is the largest source of counterfeit $100 bills in the world,

He is also China's cat's paw and some of this may be a Chinese test of Trump like forcing down the US intelligence flight early in Bush's term. Kim is for sale and has been all along.

bagoh20 said...

Hilary is the one who totally fucked this situation up more than any other individual when she both appeased Kim, and back-stabbed Qaddafi for doing exactly what we wish to convince Kim to do. Now that was clear instability. I can't imagine what Trump could do to make me regret him beating her out of the Presidency. Damn, what a bad choice she was in virtually every way.

Robert Cook said...

But there is evidence - Iran has no intention of abandoning its nuclear ambitions....

It can never be complacently assumed that parties to an agreement will assiduously keep to the agreement without incentives to do, and without monitoring to assure compliance--witness the many treaties America has made and violated--but the only alternative is perpetual war of all against all. As long as Iran can be certified to be in compliance with the agreement, there's no basis to continue fear-mongering and war-baiting.

Luke Lea said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Luke Lea said...

"The frightened dog barks loudest," says the puff adder in NK. https://goo.gl/rWPnhA

Kevin said...

You can think of no alternative possibilities? Perhaps he wants to demonstrate (or convince us of) his (in truth, so-far paltry) capabilities to forestall any plans for military aggression against NK.

He could demonstrate his technology without committing an act of war that risks Japanese lives if his unproven technology failed.

In addition, it's is clear to the world he already has the means to kill millions with his conventional forces. It is also clear the Chinese were protecting Kim with their nukes.

Sometimes the animal who shows his strength in the wild gets killed by the other animal as a result of demonstrating its threat. A rational actor accounts for this possibility when considering his options.

eric said...

Trump is trying to push Kim into acting. Otherwise, Trump will not act. Here is an area where I disagree with Trump, if he is doing what I think he is doing.

Politically, Trump does not want to instigate the violence. He does not want to be seen as Bush or even Obama. So, he pushes Kim to act first, therefore giving him the justification he thinks he needs.

It won't matter though. Even if Kim we're to nuke a US city, people would claim that was Trump's fault. And it wouldn't give him the justification.

Those who think we should go now? Will be the same who agree with Trump if Kim acts first. The rest won't support Trump no matter what Kim does. Because they've lost their ability to reason.

Ann Althouse said...

"'His remarks which described the U.S. option through straightforward expression of his [straightforward remarks about what the U.S. may do] will have [have] convinced me...' I think you are mistaken about the word will. It is used as a noun ( his will ), not as part of a verb ( will have )."

Ah! I think you are right. Well, that was utterly ambiguous. I didn't even consider "will" as a noun.

rhhardin said...

Goering was head of the humane society, the Tierschutzverein, as well.

buwaya said...

The Iranian "nuclear deal" is absurd, no matter that Iran can be said to be compliant on paper, because the terms are themselves absurd. It amounts to going through rituals disassociated from realities.

As above, there is no point to an agreement that leaves the Iranians with their nuclear intentions intact, as well as the fundamentals of their capabilities. They have not renounced sin, they are merely incented to a surly hypocrisy.

MaxedOutMama said...

Not only do I disagree with several of your "amendments", I disagree with your entire point.

Tiny Kim with the Big Stomach knows exactly what the UN wants. There is no trace of misunderstanding influencing his behavior - there really hasn't been since at least 2013. Trump's speech was never about influencing Kim Jong-Un's behavior, but rather about influencing the international community's behavior - Trump wants the rocket fire stopped. Trump wants a very serious and stringent internationally supported sanctions regime.

It's obvious that continuing these missile firings raises the chance of an awful incident if only by accident (what happens if one of them fails in midair and comes down on Japan?).

I would suggest that Kim Jong-Un's statement greatly supports Trump's position on the international stage. Thus, from Trump's perspective it is a good thing.

Robert Cook said...

"Sometimes the animal who shows his strength in the wild gets killed by the other animal as a result of demonstrating its threat. A rational actor accounts for this possibility when considering his options."

Sure. A rational actor has to play his options, and sometimes all the options are bad, or risky. Sometimes a rational actor makes the wrong choice, or he makes the best of the bad choices available, but it still provokes consequences he hoped to prevent, as the opposing rational actor may misunderstand or overreact...or may take advantage of the threat display to justify an attack wished-for all along.

Kevin said...

Those who think we should go now? Will be the same who agree with Trump if Kim acts first. The rest won't support Trump no matter what Kim does. Because they've lost their ability to reason.

You're forgetting the Chinese. They need to know Kim gave Trump sufficient provocation before he created mass casualties and resulting humanitarian disaster.

Nonapod said...

It won't matter though. Even if Kim we're to nuke a US city, people would claim that was Trump's fault. And it wouldn't give him the justification.

I'm pretty sure if Kim were to actually nuke a US city nobody would care if Trump provoked Kim or not. At that point there would be unanimity of mind the likes of which would dwarf September 12, 2001.

Robert Cook said...

@ Buwaya "The Iranian 'nuclear deal' is absurd, no matter that Iran can be said to be compliant on paper, because the terms are themselves absurd. It amounts to going through rituals disassociated from realities.

"As above, there is no point to an agreement that leaves the Iranians with their nuclear intentions intact, as well as the fundamentals of their capabilities. They have not renounced sin, they are merely incented to a surly hypocrisy."



As a reply, I repost my remarks from 10:18 AM:

"Asserting--without evidence--that "An agreement with (fill in the blank) is worthless" is another way of saying the opposing party is "unstable" or "untrustworhy," just another way to rationalize throwing aside all attempts at diplomatic and peaceful resolutions to disputes in order to make room for the war option. Such statements betray the thinking of a party already planning how it can violate the agreement and stab the opposing party in the back. It's one of the elements used by a state that, as per Goering, wishes to drag its people along to war.

9/22/17, 10:18 AM"


Said by a member of government, one must read such remarks as yours as fear-mongering and war-baiting; said by a non-governmental citizen, such remarks read as by one who has been convinced by the Government's fear-mongering and war-baiting, a al Goering.

bagoh20 said...

Kim could be a hero to both his people and the world, and live an even better life than he does. All he would have to do is make sweeping reforms and free his people, make peace with the South and the rest of the world. His legacy would be internationally respected forever.

Instead he chooses to play with guns in open view of heavily armed world police.

He's unstable, and he's a fool, who will likely end up like Mussolini, Hitler, Ceausescu, Saddam, and all the others, dead in the rubble of his nation and widely reviled. Another path would be an easy choice for a wiser more stable man.

Sam's Hideout said...

One point to consider: Kim Jong Un went to school in Switzerland for about two years. It has been reported he became fluent in German and had basic French and English. Althouse's comment on the first sentence reminded me of the joke about a German translator "waiting for the verb". I wonder if Kim's rhetorical style was significantly influenced by those years.

Howard said...

Trump's opening gambit, his "big ask" goaded Kim to go over the top, one-up-man-ship style, reacting like a frightened dog as Luke posted. In other words, Teh Dronald trolled Kim who bit on that jig hard, like a Ling Cod. This is a simple tactic that Trump uses all the time designed to create space between a large power like Ghina (or a bank funding the redevelopment) and satellite players like the NorK regime (or an electrical contractor).

George Grady said...

Maybe Kim is a Tolkien fan.

Saruman to Theoden: "Dotard! What is the house of Eorl but a thatched barn where brigands drink in the reek, and their brats roll on the floor among the dogs?"

Howard said...

Blogger bagoh20 said...Kim could be a hero to both his people and the world, and live an even better life than he does. All he would have to do is make sweeping reforms and free his people, make peace with the South and the rest of the world. His legacy would be internationally respected forever.

If Kim tried this, he would be immediately assassinated and replaced.

John Nowak said...

I suppose we could send Kim an overcharge button.

MaxedOutMama said...

The bottom line is that Kim's actions are inevitably leading to war. Trump is trying to get other nations to mobilize to stop it, reasoning that Kim must be put in fear of his own life and must not doubt the intentions of the UN. Count Ciano was Mussolini's Foreign Minister until 1943. "The Ciano Diaries" are available on Amazon for those who would like a timely reading (buy through the Althouse Amazon portal, bitte). Ciano was eventually deposed and executed by Mussolini, despite Ciano's marriage to Mussolini's daughter Edda. It was Edda who smuggled Ciano's diaries out of Italy.



ken in tx said...

I agree with buwaya that this is standard North Korean BS. As a student at DISAM (Defense Institute of Security Assistance Management), I read transcripts of North Korean propaganda broadcasts. They were full of threats and insults. non-stop. Some of the ones I remember are "big nosed, AIDS carrying, American rapists" and "American speech is like the cawing of crows, none of it is music or the truth".

BTW, I think the word Dotard is used in Shakespeare. I met several Koreans whose first experience with English was in learning to read Shakespeare. The ROKAF used these people to translate US tech manuals. Shakespeare never wrote anything about a Countersunk Screw. They came to me to find out what it meant.

Kevin said...

I can only guess what ridiculous translation into Korean would be on the plastic reset button from Hillary's State Department had she won.

bagoh20 said...

The proof that the Iranian deal is a bad one is that the Iranian leadership likes the deal immensely. These are the people who are the primary supporters of terrorism, who call for the destruction of Israel, The United States, and others simply for existing. They don't call for the overthrow of the governments. They call for the mass death of their citizens, and the total destruction of their peaceful culture with only submission for the survivors under a conquering worldwide Islamic superpower. Anything such people support can't possibly be a good deal for the rest of us.

ken in tx said...

Also, what I think Trump is trying to do is instigate a palace coup in North Korea. I think that would be the most advantageous outcome of this crisis.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Having perfected her ability to channel what Donald Trump really means when he says crazy stupid things, Althouse now thinks she can do the same for and Kim Kong Un.

A funny SNL skit would have Althouse as the translator between Trump and Kim. Kate McKinnon would play Althouse using a bit of her Hillary Clinton technique. The joke would be that Althouse would translate with too much clarity, and that would almost result in a nuclear exchange. But then the two would talk their crazy stupid talk directly to each other, miraculously and unexpectedly resolving the standoff, while Althouse/Hillary wonders what happened.

MaxedOutMama said...

In the final entry of Ciano's diary in anticipation of his execution, dated December 23rd, 1943, Ciano writes of his discussions with Ribbentrop and Hitler in August of 1939:

"Well, Ribbentrop" I asked as we were walking together in the garden, "what do you want? The Corridor or Danzig?"
"Not that any more," he said gazing at me with his cold metallic eyes. "We want war!"
I felt that the decision was irrevocable, and in a flash I saw the tragedy that threatened humanity. The conversations, not always cordial, which I had with my German colleague lasted for ten hours that day. Those that I had with Hitler lasted for as many hours on the two successive days. My arguments made absolutely no impression on either of them. They were like water on a duck's back. Nothing could have prevented the execution of this criminal project long meditated and fondly discussed in those somber meetings the Fuehrer had every evening with his intimates. The madness of the Chief had become the religion of his followers. Every objection was ruled out even if it was not ridiculed.
Their calculation was fundamentally wrong. They were sure that both France and England would remain passive during the slaughter of Poland.

Patrick Henry was right! said...

But there is evidence - Iran has no intention of abandoning its nuclear ambitions....

It can never be complacently assumed that parties to an agreement will assiduously keep to the agreement without incentives to do, and without monitoring to assure compliance--witness the many treaties America has made and violated--but the only alternative is perpetual war of all against all. As long as Iran can be certified to be in compliance with the agreement, there's no basis to continue fear-mongering and war-baiting.

So, then Hitler was in full compliance with the Munich Agreement. Therefore, Chamberlain and Churchill were wrong to re-arm Britain and to argue for re-arming all of the Western democracies.

Robert Cook - lead spokesperson for appeasement and unilateral disarmament.

Enjoy the EMP attack, then you fifth columnist.

Owen said...

Prof. A: absolutely fascinating analysis, and not incidentally you have proven your merit as an editor of English-like translations of "Despot Korean." I define it that way because all official pronouncements, in any language, are already unnatural parasitic forms of the parent tongue, which is fed by intimate communication with the wider culture. Whether from the UN or the White House or the Kremlin or corporate HQ, these statements are all artificial.

That said, Kim Jong Un's statements, like those of his forefathers, are particularly weird. Their locutions may reflect the "natural" structure of the Korean language but I speculate that they mostly reflect the terrified adherence of the official translating staff, to the agreed vocabulary and rhetoric of Dear Leader.

The fact that we "understand" any part of this string of symbols is almost miraculous.

I am not optimistic that words will resolve this. But maybe these guys are smart enough to ignore the words and read the underlying rippling of muscle and where the eye is looking.

Crazy times.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

Lost in translation is analogous to our press's claims of ignorance and quotes that do not quote, foreign and domestic intelligence assets that create dossiers, and DNC collusion with diversity rackets that invent the daily outrage for profit.

MaxedOutMama said...

Ken in TX - Yes, and if China can influence such an outcome, Trump would like to convince them to do so. Also he wants to put military sub-chiefs in NK in fear of their lives, in order to encourage them to make a change.

I think Trump suspects that Kim Jong-un wants war, and nothing but war. I think Trump's right. The policy of shooting missiles over and around Japan is so obviously a casus belli that I believe Kim is doing it to convince his subordinates that the opponents are not serious.

Hitler and Germany had to go to war, because they had worked themselves into an economic trap. It is very possible that Kim is in the same situation. Since 2010 NK has been nearly unceasingly escalating.

bagoh20 said...

"If Kim tried this, he would be immediately assassinated and replaced. "

The ideology of North Korea, is Kim centered. Unlike most other tyrannical regimes, the people support his genetic right to power more than they identify as a nation led by a replaceable man. They will support whatever he does, and will not accept a coup, which I'm sure any potential replacement understands. Kim is in a unique situation and opportunity. Three generations of power without assasination. His future is more in danger from his military ambition than from his own people. That path of ambition has no chance of wider success or respect. His power to be important is limited to his current border if he keeps on this path. If he wants more, which he does, he needs to think outside the dark staving box.

Alex said...

South Korea wants us to talk to Kim Jong Un, why don't we listen to our ally instead of blustering around on the world stage like a racist drunk uncle?

Alex said...

Cook Godwinized the thread.

Michael K said...

there is no point to an agreement that leaves the Iranians with their nuclear intentions intact, as well as the fundamentals of their capabilities.

I disagree. The problem is not the nuclear weapons, which the population probably supports as a matter of national pride.

It is the regime that must go.

As others have pointed out, Hillary and Obama, by a monumental miscalculation, made it impossible to ever again convince a dictator to give up a nuclear program,.

Heywood Rice said...

There's no military solution, forget it...

...Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don't die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don't know what you're talking about, there's no military solution here, they got us
Bannon

Charlie Eklund said...

Dotard and Jalad at Tanagra.

walter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Heywood Rice said...

As others have pointed out, Hillary and Obama, by a monumental miscalculation, made it impossible to ever again convince a dictator to give up a nuclear program

Yeah, by continuing with the failed neocon Bush doctrine.

Alex said...

Why should an American care about Iranian national prestige? Fuck 'em.

Heywood Rice said...

...who call for the destruction of Israel, The United States, and others simply for existing...

Right Walter, it's 2003 all over again.

walter said...

Blogger bagoh20 said...
These are the people who are the primary supporters of terrorism, who call for the destruction of Israel, The United States, and others simply for existing. They don't call for the overthrow of the governments. They call for the mass death of their citizens, and the total destruction of their peaceful culture with only submission for the survivors under a conquering worldwide Islamic superpower.
--

Yeah but..talk it out. Ignore the Taquiya and get an agreement.

Alex said...Cook Godwinized the thread.
--
Chamberlained it

J. Farmer said...

What's most hilarious is that the two countries that American foreign policy seems to dwell on are North Korea and Iran. Both are underdeveloped, economically backward countries that have limited capacity to threaten US national security. Of course, if you say that your national security extends to the entire globe, you may see things differently. But it's telling that most of the scaremongering over Iran and North Korea have to do with claims that their leaders are irrational or unstable and thus cannot be deterred by conventional means. It's this claim that I reject. Neither Iran nor North Korea has significant expansionist goals, and their strategic orientation is almost singularly defensive in its construction.

Alex said...

J. Farmer thinks he's smarter than the Trump administration.

J. Farmer said...

@Alex:

It doesn't make any sense for one person to claim to be smarter than an "administration." There is undoubtedly people within the administration who I am smarter than and people who are smarter than me. That should go without saying. But have you ever disagreed with any administration's policy? If so, is it a criticism to say, "Alex thinks he's smarter than the [insert name here] administration."

Michael K said...

"Yeah, by continuing with the failed neocon Bush doctrine."

No, dope. Bush is the one who convinced Gaddafi to give up his nuke program.

Bad decision when Obama and Hillary were coming.

J. Farmer said...

@Michael K:

No, dope. Bush is the one who convinced Gaddafi to give up his nuke program.

Bad decision when Obama and Hillary were coming.


I think there is more than enough blame to go around. If you want to try to measure these things, Iraq was probably more destructive to our interests and more consequential. Libya was an atrocious decision in its own right, but by its geographic and historical nature, it is simply less significant than Iraq. Of course, the Italians who have had to deal with the refugee crisis from the Mediterranean might not think so. Bush and Obama each followed a foreign policy that was pretty much established under Clinton, which is essentially a "neocon" foreign policy. Neocons tended to support Clinton over Bush, and Clinton was the first to occupy the office during the so called "unipolar moment," which never really existed. But a lot of the wrongheaded assumptions that inform US foreign policy really got going in that area. And of course there are multiple historical antecedents to those.

Michael K said...

Both are underdeveloped, economically backward countries that have limited capacity to threaten US national security.

But for Islam and the Islamist regime, Iran might be at the same stage as Poland.

I agree with you about NK.

Neither Iran nor North Korea has significant expansionist goals, and their strategic orientation is almost singularly defensive in its construction.

Here, I disagree. NK is just the Mafia writ large.

Iran has ambitions to rule the Middle East and destroy Israel. I am not living in Israel but a war between Iran and Israel would be the end of civilization east of Greece.

Most of the citizens of Iran are victims, not perpetrators. But they would be annihilated in a nuclear exchange with Israel.

About ten years ago Tony Cordesman estimated the results of a nuclear exchange between them.

He estimates Israeli casualties at “between 200,000 and 800,000 Israelis dead.” Iranian casuaties would be far higher at “some 16 million to 28 million Iranians dead within 21 days.” His analysis of the outcome ?

“It is theoretically possible that the Israeli state, economy and organized society might just survive such an almost-mortal blow. Iran would not survive as an organized society. “Iranian recovery is not possible in the normal sense of the term,” Cordesman notes. The difference in the death tolls is largely because Israel is believed to have more nuclear weapons of very much higher yield (some of 1 megaton), and Israel is deploying the Arrow advanced anti-missile system in addition to its Patriot batteries. Fewer Iranian weapons would get through.”


That was almost ten years ago.

Michael K said...

If you want to try to measure these things, Iraq was probably more destructive to our interests and more consequential. Libya was an atrocious decision in its own right, but by its geographic and historical nature, it is simply less significant than Iraq.

We can argue about Iraq. I have discussed this several places. That is one.

The significance of Libya is the total incentive for any dictator to never trust the word of America.

J. Farmer said...

@Michael K:

Iran has ambitions to rule the Middle East and destroy Israel. I am not living in Israel but a war between Iran and Israel would be the end of civilization east of Greece.

I don't believe Iran has any such ambitions, and if they do so, I have not seen any convincing evidence. As for wanting to "destroy Israel," I also think this is a myth. What the Iranians have talked about is demographically destroying Israel as a Jewish state through the so called right of return. Ahmadinejad's widely reported and poorly translated "wiped off the map" statement was not about Israel writ large but about what it considered an occupation of Israel. And it did not say that Iran would do this, but that it would simply come to happen. Iran was not making any kind of threat or stated goal of destroying Israel.

J. Farmer said...

@Michael K:

The significance of Libya is the total incentive for any dictator to never trust the word of America.

I agree that was one of the bad outcomes (among many) for attacking Libya. But countries learned the same thing from Iraq. He had given up his WMD programs after the First Gulf War, and it got destroyed for it. Also, the US has a long history of reneging on promises. We promised the Russians not to expand NATO one inch east in favor of Russian support for German unification and ascension to NATO.

Gahrie said...

I don't believe Iran has any such ambitions, and if they do so, I have not seen any convincing evidence

Why don't the statements by the Iranians themselves convince you? Why don't you believe them when they say that this is their intention?

Michael K said...

" I have not seen any convincing evidence."

I guess statements by the rulers of Iran are not evidence enough.

One of my problems with Big L Libertarians is the naïveté of their ideas on foreign policy.

I realize you are a Buchanan style conservative but you sound Libertarian at times like this.

One of the Jews who survived Hitler was quoted after his rescue, "If someone says he wants to kill you, believe him."

J. Farmer said...

@Gahrie:

Why don't the statements by the Iranians themselves convince you? Why don't you believe them when they say that this is their intention?

Quote what you mean with a source, and I'll give you my response.

Gahrie said...

Also, the US has a long history of reneging on promises.

Bad USA bad.

The world would be a much better place if the USA did not exist.

If only the USA acted more like North Korea, China, Russia or Iran...just think how much happier everyone would be.

J. Farmer said...

@Michael K:

I guess statements by the rulers of Iran are not evidence enough.

One of my problems with Big L Libertarians is the naïveté of their ideas on foreign policy.

I realize you are a Buchanan style conservative but you sound Libertarian at times like this.

One of the Jews who survived Hitler was quoted after his rescue, "If someone says he wants to kill you, believe him."


Who cares how I "sound?" It's my arguments that matter. I have never been a "Big L Libertarian," and I disagree with them on a number of issues (immigration being a huge one). As for the "statements by the rulers," I'll ask of you what I asked of Gahrie. Quote these statements with their sources.

J. Farmer said...

@Gahrie:

Bad USA bad.

The world would be a much better place if the USA did not exist.

If only the USA acted more like North Korea, China, Russia or Iran...just think how much happier everyone would be.


And now back to what I actually said. Is it your contention that the USA has never reneged on a promise? My point was that countries have good reason to be skeptical of American promises. If you deny that, argue why it's wrong, instead of trying to attack some kind of strawman you have constructed in your head.

Gahrie said...

Quote what you mean with a source, and I'll give you my response.

So your position is that Iran has not announced its intentions to destroy the nation of Israel, or to restore a caliphate based in Tehran? That Iran has not been working towards those ends since 1979?

Gahrie said...

Ask Western Europe, Israel and South Korea if the US keeps its promises.

J. Farmer said...

@Gahrie:

So your position is that Iran has not announced its intentions to destroy the nation of Israel, or to restore a caliphate based in Tehran? That Iran has not been working towards those ends since 1979?

The second question is an absolute softball. No, Iran does not want to "restore a caliphate." A shia country would never have such a goal, which they consider outside their reach to begin with. The restoration of caliphates is a Sunni idea.

As for Israel, no, I do not believe that, and I explained a few comments up why that was so.

Gahrie said...

But countries learned the same thing from Iraq. He had given up his WMD programs after the First Gulf War, and it got destroyed for it.

Wrong. The second Gulf War was fought over Hussien's refusal to abide by the terms of the ceasefire..including attacking American airplanes enforcing the no fly zone.

J. Farmer said...

@Gahrie:

Ask Western Europe, Israel and South Korea if the US keeps its promises.

And yet everyone of these have had their issues with American support and backing. Why is that? They must want to copy Iran, Russia, and China...since that's the only motive for criticizing the US apparently.

J. Farmer said...

@Gahrie:

Wrong. The second Gulf War was fought over Hussien's refusal to abide by the terms of the ceasefire..including attacking American airplanes enforcing the no fly zone.

Right. I must have hallucinated that part where the administration harped on Iraq's WMD capabilities for a year.

Gahrie said...

Right. I must have hallucinated that part where the administration harped on Iraq's WMD capabilities for a year.

No..you jut ignored everything else.

Gahrie said...

And yet everyone of these have had their issues with American support and backing.

Only when Democratic administrations threatened to weaken it.

walter said...

Nice:
In defiance to US, Iran unveils latest missile during parade

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran's Revolutionary Guard on Friday unveiled its latest ballistic missile capable of reaching much of the Middle East, including Israel, while the country's president vowed that Tehran would press ahead with its missile program in defiance of U.S. demands to the contrary.

The unveiling came during a military parade in Tehran that commemorated the 1980s Iraq-Iran war.
--
I vote to send Cook with a box of dream catchers.

J. Farmer said...

@Gahrie:

No..you jut ignored everything else.

And you've completely missed my point. What I said was, "But countries learned the same thing from Iraq. He had given up his WMD programs after the First Gulf War, and it got destroyed for it."

Your response was "Wrong." So the administration didn't prioritize and harp on WMD's considerably above and beyond any other consideration? Was it not Condoleeza Rice who said, "But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." Go back and reread Bush's speech before the Iraq War and see how often he talks about WMD versus any other issue with Iraq.

Gahrie said...

As for wanting to "destroy Israel," I also think this is a myth. What the Iranians have talked about is demographically destroying Israel as a Jewish state through the so called right of return. Ahmadinejad's widely reported and poorly translated "wiped off the map" statement was not about Israel writ large but about what it considered an occupation of Israel. And it did not say that Iran would do this, but that it would simply come to happen. Iran was not making any kind of threat or stated goal of destroying Israel.

Israel Believes that Iran wants to destroy Israel.

Iran believes that Iran wants to destroy Israel.

Muslims around the world believe that Iran wants to destroy Israel.

Hezbollah and Hamas believe that Iran wants to destroy Israel.

The U.S. believes that Iran wants to destroy Israel.

If only the world would listen to J. Farmer.

North Korea doesn't want to invade South Korea.

China isn't trying to extend their empire and threaten their neighbors.

Russia isn't trying to restore the Soviet empire.

Iran isn't trying to destroy Israel and impose Islam on the world.

We would have Heaven on Earth if the US would simply disarm and attempt to isolate itself from the world.



J. Farmer said...

@Gahrie:

Only when Democratic administrations threatened to weaken it.

If you insist on seeing the world through that kind of ridiculous partisan lense, then there is probably not much I could say to dissuade. So I'll just return to asking you to support your positions. Cite me one of these many voluminous statements by the Iranians that support your position.

J. Farmer said...

@Gahrie:

Impressive list of strawmen. Of course I never advocated the things you said, and if you think I did, feel free to quote me to that effect. But to keep the discussion on track, let me focus on this...

"Iran believes that Iran wants to destroy Israel."

Cite me a source for this. If it's as obvious as you claim, this should be a simple task.

Gahrie said...

So I'll just return to asking you to support your positions

How could I possibly do that?

When Iran openly states its intentions to destroy Israel, you explain it away.

When North Korea threatens the US and South Korea, you say it is just posturing caused by their fear of a US invasion.

If I had signed statements from the leaders of Iran, North Korea, Russia and China stating their intentions you would explain those away as reactions to the actions of the US yet again.

J. Farmer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J. Farmer said...

@Gahrie:

When Iran openly states its intentions to destroy Israel, you explain it away.

In other words, you can't actually quote anything an Iranian leader as ever said to this effect, but you believe it so it must be true?

All I am asking you to do is quote an Iranian making this claim. Why can't you do that?

J. Farmer said...

We would have Heaven on Earth if the US would simply disarm and attempt to isolate itself from the world.

Of course I never made such a ridiculous claim. What I said was that the US should not waste American servicemembers lives and trillions of dollars on wars of aggression that often leave us in a worse position than before the war got started.

Gahrie said...

If Tel Aviv went up in a mushroom cloud this afternoon, your response would be that Israel did it to themselves.

If Guam went up in a mushroom cloud you'd blame US provocation.

If China invaded Vietnam, you'd say that China has historical claims to Indochina.

If Russia invaded Eastern Europe, you'd say that Russia was merely restoring the previous status quo.

Apparently the only bad actor on the world stage is the US.

Fuck us.

Michael K said...

You want more evidence.

Here is some from HuffPo

The tension between Israel and Iran appears to be heightening. Hossein Salami, deputy commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), recently said: “Hezbollah has 100,000 missiles that are ready to hit Israel to liberate the occupied Palestinian territories if the Zionist regime repeats its past mistakes.”

He added: “Today, the grounds for the annihilation and collapse of the Zionist regime are [present] more than ever.” Salami warned that if Israel made the “wrong move,” it would come under attack.

A few weeks ago, a senior adviser to the IRGC’s elite Quds Force, Ahmad Karimpour, said Iran could destroy Israel “in less than eight minutes” if Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei gave the order.


Now, that is not threatening a nuclear attack but they have done so.

Do you need more ? Why not read the link I provided several comments ago ?

People here,(not you) say I don't provide anything but opinion but people don't read links.

J. Farmer said...

@Gahrie:

Apparently the only bad actor on the world stage is the US.

If you want to argue with some kind of anti-American strawman, then you need to go find them and have that argument. I have never made any of the absurd claims that you are attributing to me.

Gahrie said...

In other words, you can't actually quote anything an Iranian leader as ever said to this effect, but you believe it so it must be true?

Someone quoted you an Iranian leader threatening to destroy Israel and you explained it away. Why waste my time..nothing I could possibly say would convince you of the evil intentions of Iran, or China, Russia or North Korea.

Gahrie said...

If you want to argue with some kind of anti-American strawman,

Every time a discussion of North Korea, Russia, China or Iran comes up, your response is to defend them, and explain their actions as reactions to US provocations.

J. Farmer said...

@Michael K:

Do you need more ? Why not read the link I provided several comments ago ?

Even your own quotes don't back up your statement. None of those are claims to destroy Israel. They are claims of what would be done in the event of Israel doing something else. It is not saying that Israel will be destroyed "simply for existing."

J. Farmer said...

@Gahrie:

Someone quoted you an Iranian leader threatening to destroy Israel and you explained it away. Why waste my time..nothing I could possibly say would convince you of the evil intentions of Iran, or China, Russia or North Korea.

No one did; I brought up one that I frequently encounter and gave my response to it. If you consider understanding a quote correct as it being "explained...away," then I guess I am guilt as charged.

As for Iran or China pr Russia or North Korea, I have never defended the nature of any of those regimes. What I have done is try to put the strategic challenges they pose in perspective (as opposed to blown out of proportion) and I have attempted to explain why I think aggressive behavior in response to these regimes is likely not to get us what we want and in fact might make the problem worse.

Gahrie said...

@J.Farmer:

Just out of curiosity...do you believe that Iranian maps show the nation of Israel? Does the Iranian government recognize Israel's right to exist?

If you acknowledge that Iran explicitly does not recognize Israel's right to exist why do you find it so hard to believe that they would want to destroy Israel?

Gahrie said...

What I have done is try to put the strategic challenges they pose in perspective

That worked out swell for Neville Chamberlin.

J. Farmer said...

@Gahrie:

If you acknowledge that Iran explicitly does not recognize Israel's right to exist why do you find it so hard to believe that they would want to destroy Israel?

No country has a "right to exist." Countries have a right to defend themselves. But hold, you said that this has been the plane, stated desire of the Iranian leadership for years. So now we're inferring it from other statements?

And no, one proposition does not lead inexorably to the next. You can believe a country is illegitimate but not believe that you will destroy it. What Iran and most of the regional countries oppose (though I don't) is the notion that Israel must be a "Jewish statement." Hence their use of the term "Zionist regime." Iran supports the right of return for Palestinians (I don't) and believes that Arab demography will eventually put an end to Israel as a "Jewish state." That is not the same thing as saying Iran's military will murder 8 million Israeli citizens and destroy the country by force.

And even if Iran had such ambitions, it would have no practical means of achieving it, because of deterrence. North Korea can want to annex whole peninsula all it wants. It can't achieve this, because the South Korean military deters. This is why you have a military...to deter an attack. Not to initiate wars of aggression.

J. Farmer said...

@Gahrie:

That worked out swell for Neville Chamberlin.

Ah, the cliche that will never die. Because of course when you look at North Korea and Iran, they are completely analogous to 1930s Germany, one of the most powerful and industrialized nations on the planet. Can you point to anything North Korea or Iran has done in the last 30 years or so that would be analogous to Germany's annexation of the Sudetenland?

walter said...

Nukes change the equation.

J. Farmer said...

@walter:

Nukes change the equation.

How? Why does conventional military deterrence work but not nuclear deterrence not?

walter said...

“This year’s rally ... shows people want our region to be cleaned up from terrorists, backed by the Zionist regime (Israel),” President Hassan Rouhani told state TV.
<
Demonstrators chanted “Death to Israel, Death to America,”, carrying banners reading “Israel should be wiped off the map” while people were shown burning the Israeli flag.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-religion-ramadan-alqds-iran/iranians-chant-death-to-israel-burn-islamic-states-flag-at-rallies-tv-idUSKBN19E13O

walter said...

Nukes paired with a destructive ideology allow more countries to threaten/control others.

J. Farmer said...

@walter:

Nukes paired with a destructive ideology allow more countries to threaten/control others.

How can they "control others?" Can you give an example of how Iran could control another country because it possessed nukes?

Gahrie said...

Can you point to anything North Korea or Iran has done in the last 30 years or so that would be analogous to Germany's annexation of the Sudetenland?

North Korea: kidnapping and killing American soldiers. Attacking and destroying South Korean military units. Their stated desire to invade South Korea and destroy the US.

Iran: Funding of terrorism worldwide. Attacks against US military. Stated desire to destroy Israel, the US and impose Islam on the world.

China: invasion of Tibet. Creation of artificial island with military bases.

Russia: invasion of Ukraine. Threats to Baltic states.

walter said...

Farmer...you are trolling.

Gahrie said...

@J.Farmer:

What would Iran have to do to convince you that it desired the destruction of Israel? What would Iran have to do to convince you it was a threat to US interests?

How about North Korea?

China?

Russia?

J. Farmer said...

@walter:

Farmer...you are trolling.

It's "trolling" to ask you to substantiate a claim you made?

@Gahrie:

None of the things you claimed are "analogous to Germany's annexation of the Sudetenland?" Have North Korea or Iran obtained any territory? Do they have expansionist goals with the exception of the North and South each believing they are the legitimate governments of the Korean peninsula?

What would Iran have to do to convince you that it desired the destruction of Israel? What would Iran have to do to convince you it was a threat to US interests?

It could state this desire outright. You claim they have; I say they have not. If Iran began engaging in behavior that actually threatened our interests, then we should move to counter it. As it stands, they do not.

Where are the Russians or the Chinese or the Iranians or the North Koreans? Are they in the Caribbean? Are their forces on the Mexican or Canadian borders? Are they off the coast of California? No.

Gahrie said...

Where are the Russians or the Chinese or the Iranians or the North Koreans? Are they in the Caribbean? Are their forces on the Mexican or Canadian borders? Are they off the coast of California? No.

The point you are missing or ignoring is:

By then it's too late.

J. Farmer said...

Gahrie:

By then it's too late.

And so I will return a question to you. Why won't deterrence work?

J. Farmer said...

@Gahrie:

Let me ask one more. If China signed mutual defense treaties with Mexico, began integrating their military forces with the Mexicans, built bases and stationed troops in Mexico, and began conducting regular war game activities with the Mexican military, would the US find that threatening or provocative? Why?

Caligula said...

I know this is not what Trump is hoping to hear.

Google Translate English -> Korean
나는 이것이 트럼프가 듣기를 희망하는 것이 아니라는 것을 안다.

Google translate Korean -> English

I know this is not what Trump hopes to hear.

“This is not a rhetorical expression loved by Trump” ??

I doubt Koreans can access Google Translate, but surely Dear Leader could do so? In general it seems beyond foolish to trust something like Google Translate if the stakes are other than trivial, but what if the human translator is not even as good as Google's algorithm?


Rusty said...

J. Farmer said...
"What's most hilarious is that the two countries that American foreign policy seems to dwell on are North Korea and Iran. Both are underdeveloped, economically backward countries that have limited capacity to threaten US national security. Of course, if you say that your national security extends to the entire globe, you may see things differently. But it's telling that most of the scaremongering over Iran and North Korea have to do with claims that their leaders are irrational or unstable and thus cannot be deterred by conventional means. It's this claim that I reject. Neither Iran nor North Korea has significant expansionist goals, and their strategic orientation is almost singularly defensive in its construction."

No one is making this argument.

J. Farmer said...

@Rusty:

No one is making this argument.

You can read this very argument just in this thread, not to mention numerous others. The notion that Iranian and North Korean "leaders are irrational or unstable and thus cannot be deterred by conventional means" is one I have responded to numerous times in the comments to this blog.

But if I am missing the "argument," perhaps you can tell me what it is, and I will give a response.

Gahrie said...

would the US find that threatening or provocative?

Yes.

Why?

Because the US is led by a bunch of paranoid control freaks who want to start wars of aggression all over the world and are just looking for an excuse to attack peaceful cooperative countries like Russia, China, Iran and North Korea.

I mean all you have to do is look at how the US has continued to occupy and oppress Panama after the invasion 1989 versus how China withdrew from Tibet and allowed it to develop into a peaceful and prosperous nation.

Gahrie said...

One only has to compare how the US has treated South Korea to the way Russia and China have treated North Korea, and the standard of living of the people of North and South Korea to understand who the good guys and bad guys are.

One only has to look at the standard of living and political freedom that Muslims have in Israel with the same for Iran to see who the good guys and the bad guys are.

Look at how well Russia treated Eastern Europe and Eurasia versus how the US treated Western Europe. It's a good thing Russia built a wall to keep all the fleeing Westerners out.

China is a perfect example of how nations should behave both internally and internationally.

Robert Cook said...

"The proof that the Iranian deal is a bad one is that the Iranian leadership likes the deal immensely. These are the people who are the primary supporters of terrorism, who call for the destruction of Israel, The United States, and others simply for existing. They don't call for the overthrow of the governments. They call for the mass death of their citizens, and the total destruction of their peaceful culture with only submission for the survivors under a conquering worldwide Islamic superpower. Anything such people support can't possibly be a good deal for the rest of us."

Ah! Someone who has totally swallowed the government's "Goering Kool-Aid!"

J. Farmer said...

@Gahrie:

Again, I'm not sure who you're arguing with; it's certainly not me. If you think I have ever defended the internal nature of any of the regimes you've mentioned, you're sorely mistaken. And you can't quote a single thing I've ever said to that effect. What I have said is that the security threats those regimes pose to the United States is neglbel; we have more than enough resources to protect ourselves from them; and deploying military resources to solve those problems is likely to be wasteful and counterproductive. Everything I have argued has been in service of those broad points. Now if you disagree with them, I'll be more than happy to listen to your arguments and respond to them. If you want to just keep attacking me and my supposed motives, then I could not be less interested.

Robert Cook said...

Cook Godwinized the thread.

No. I pointed out that most wars are wars that are desired by the leaders of countries, for various and sundry reasons, but usually for aggrandizement of power or access to resources. The people are made to want that which will benefit the leaders by means of propaganda that acts on the public like the stimulus to Pavlov's Dog. Goering just happens to be one who was in position to know this from the government's position, and speak of it frankly to an interrogator. If Goering or Hitler had never lived, if the Nazis had never existed, the diamond-hard truth of his remarks would remain.

J. Farmer said...

@Robert Cook:

If Goering or Hitler had never lived, if the Nazis had never existed, the diamond-hard truth of his remarks would remain.

What's surprising is that anyone could find Goering's statement at all controversial. It seems a banal statement of obvious reality. Now, I have a lot of problems with the propaganda model that Chomsky described in his Manufacturing Consent, but I think his notion of setting the parameters for acceptable opinion and then allowing a lively debate to go on within those boundaries is spot on. Tucker Carlson quoted them not too long ago. And even though Carlson was quoting them in the context of SJW racial politics, I have noted that Carlson is one on the establishment right who has moved more towards an anti-interventionist foreign policy orientation. Ann Coulter and Laura Ingrham are two other examples who come readily to mind.

Robert Cook said...

I've been reading over the section of these comments I missed since leaving my computer earlier today. I see J. Farmer has arrived and he is wiping the floor with the expected Confederacy of Dunces who try try try but fail even to seriously engage his well-stated comments and arguments, much less to counter them.

"Farmer...you are trolling."

A concession by the commenter that he has nothing substantive to say in response to the remarks which perturb him.

Gahrie said...

What I have said is that the security threats those regimes pose to the United States is neglbel; we have more than enough resources to protect ourselves from them;

...and who gives a fuck about all our friends and allies....

Gahrie said...

we have more than enough resources to protect ourselves from them; and deploying military resources to solve those problems is likely to be wasteful and counterproductive.

Isolationism doesn't work anymore..the world is too small now. Most of us figured that out in the 1940's.

buwaya said...

The primary risk of North Korea, nukes especially, is as leverage to "Finlandize" South Korea, to bring it into the Chinese orbit. South Korean politics/public opinion are very prone to hysteria and panic. North Korea is, long term, a useful tool of China. A potentially very dangerous tool, and this is a dangerous game.

Its no accident that NK is shooting missiles at Japan. There is method there. SK public hates Japan, as does SK's leftist political side, which is also hyper-nationalist.

The ultimate game is being played by China. China is not OK, long term, with the Pax Americana. It prefers the Pax Sinica. It is working very hard to make itself a world power. The rate of growth of Chinese military power is very concerning. It is also no accident that they are putting huge resources into units that can be used in foreign, overseas expeditions.

J. Farmer said...

@Gahrie:

...and who gives a fuck about all our friends and allies....

First, countries do not have friends; they have interests. As for our alliance structure, I've argued ad nadeem here that I think the US is party to way too many mutual defense treaties. I do not believe in NATO, the Rio Treaty, or our mutual defense arrangements with South Korea or the Philippines. We can sell them weapons. We can give them training. But I do not believe that we should give them war guarantees. This exposes the US to a great deal of liability, and we get little of strategic value in concern. Without those obligations, we'd be better off.

Now I have also said that I am for mutual defense treaties with UK, Australia, and Japan. Our arrangement with South Korea is a Cold War relic. South Korea is a wealthy, advanced nation that outclasses the North economically, militarily, and technology on every measure that matters. They have more than enough resources to protect themselves from any significant threat from the North. This is why your typical Seoul resident, 35 miles from the DMZ, is far less worried about the North than the average Althouse commenter.

The continental European powers would be more than welcome to form their own mutual defense arrangements to counter the Russians. This is already being constructed in fact under the guise of the EU. The Philippines and ASEAN would likewise be free to pursue mutual defense arrangements against China. Smart American diplomacy could then leverage these centers of power with regard to each other and maintain a stable balance of power arrangement. The hegemonic, unipolar theory cooked up by neoconservative idealist and liberal internationalist in the early aftermath of the end of the Cold War will lead us right off a cliff. H.W. Bush, in my opinion, was the last time the US had anything resembling an adult foreign policy. To hear so called conservatives engaging in this Clintonian, self-righteous, "indispensable nation" babble.

Isolationism doesn't work anymore..the world is too small now. Most of us figured that out in the 1940's.

Back to the cliches again. Anytime someone advocates that the US rely less on militarism as a solution to foreign problems, they are immediately called an isolationist. I am a nationalist; that is not an isolationist. There are many ways to engage with the world that do not involve aircraft carriers, army battalions, and laser-guided weaponry. As for the 1940s, I do not know of any reasonable reading of history that says the events of the 1940s were a result of excessive isolationism. We were deeply involved in affairs in Europe and in the Pacific and to call US foreign policy in the 1930s "isolationist" is ridiculous. Further, what some others have realized is that it is not the 1940s anymore. The world has changed in significant and important ways. Trying to conduct a foreign policy of the 1940s in 2017 is part of the problem.

Bad Lieutenant said...


Robert Cook said...
"Goering was talking about WWII."

What he said is applicable to every war, and his statement was a general statement, not meant to apply only to the war just ended.

We have seen the truth of his remarks in every war we have been involved with or started since WWII.
9/22/17, 10:06 AM


What he said, eh? Do you have a source for that? Because:


"You can't believe everything you read on the Internet."
--Abraham Lincoln

Bad Lieutenant said...


How can they "control others?" Can you give an example of how Iran could control another country because it possessed nukes?
9/22/17, 2:15 PM


This is simply not a serious remark.

Robert Cook said...

"What he said, eh? Do you have a source for that? Because:

'You can't believe everything you read on the Internet.'
--Abraham Lincoln"


The quote is well-known and has been published often. It was taken from interviews Goering had with Gustav Gilbert, who interviewed many of the Nazis on trial at Nuremberg. I assume you will find it printed in this bound book, (i.e., not the internet).

Robert Cook said...

"'How can they "control others?" Can you give an example of how Iran could control another country because it possessed nukes?
9/22/17, 2:15 PM'


"This is simply not a serious remark."


To the contrary; how is it not a serious remark? Several nations have nukes, yet this doesn't enable them to control other countries. Your remark is a rhetorical dodge, put forth to avoid providing a substantive answer.

Trumpit said...

I see a top position for you in Kim Jong Un's government as an editor of the Supreme Leader's torrid speeches. Shall I write him a letter suggesting it? I will also inquire about pay and benefits commensurate with your talent. Your efforts to put his speeches into idiomatic English may forestall WWIII. On the other hand, Kim, who is a fickle man, may get mad at you for some perceived slight and decide to kill you with an anti-aircraft gun similar to what he did to his defense minister, Mr. Hyon. Whatever you do, don't doze off in the Dear Leader's presence.

"MPs were told Mr Hyon was killed on 30 April by anti-aircraft fire in front of an audience of hundreds, the Yonhap news agency reports.
It said Mr Hyon had fallen asleep during an event attended by Kim Jong-un and had not carried out instructions." -BBC

Bad Lieutenant said...


Farmer...you are trolling.

It's "trolling" to ask you to substantiate a claim you made?


I dunno...last time I did that you didn't like it.

Bad Lieutenant said...


"This is simply not a serious remark."

To the contrary; how is it not a serious remark? Several nations have nukes, yet this doesn't enable them to control other countries. Your remark is a rhetorical dodge, put forth to avoid providing a substantive answer.


It was put forward to avert greater effort, which would not have been Justified. If you have nukes, and you can't figure out how to give the country next to you to give you something that you want, you really shouldn't have bothered to acquire nukes. Yes, the United States gets a remarkable amount of non-compliance considering that it has nukes. However, we are exceedingly reluctant to use them, and unfortunately this is well-known. Iran or NK wouldn't have this problem.

Still playing dumb? Let me make it real simple for you. Your (pacifist hippie gun-fearing) neighbor has a loud party. Walk next door and complain, get laughed at. Go home, get your gun, bang on the window with your pistol. The noise stops. Next day you walk over and ask to borrow a cup of sugar. I daresay either the sugar will be forthcoming or there will be an unusually good excuse.

Now scale up X 50 million.

Ah, you say, but the neighbor can call the police!

Ah, but the cops don't scale up x50 million.