To Go, Or To Stay, Is The Question?

May 2018
Kim is the winner right now. He's no longer the boycotted leader of a pariah state. The US president, such as he is, is meeting with him. Xi has met with him. A meeting with Putin is upcoming.

If something worthwhile for the US emerges from the meeting, then Trump will be a "winner." Until then, you're counting unhatched chickens.
Trump gave Kim Jung Un VALIDATION.
Likes: 1 person
Dec 2015
What EXACTLY did he win and how exactly did he win it?

Anyone other than me notice how the Trump supporters almost always talk about how "Trump wins" and NOT how "America wins" or "the people of America wins?"
It's cultist adoration, nothing is important other than Trump and his "brand", anything and everyone else is secondary.

Oh H! I think you've forgotten something. Trump wins NO MATTER what the outcome--doncha know?

I keep coming back to what HE SAID during the campaign: I could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and my supporters would stand by me.

Hard to believe. But it's true. No matter what he does....they stand by him....and IF HE DOES SHOOT SOMEONE?? The cult will say,
"IT was self-defense OR he just knicked them OR at least he didn't kill them OR HE was just joking."
Likes: 1 person
Jul 2015
Kim is the winner right now. He's no longer the boycotted leader of a pariah state. The US president, such as he is, is meeting with him. Xi has met with him. A meeting with Putin is upcoming.

If something worthwhile for the US emerges from the meeting, then Trump will be a "winner." Until then, you're counting unhatched chickens.
US hostages have been returned. That is a win.
Likes: 1 person


Forum Staff
Oct 2010
Trump gave Kim Jung Un VALIDATION.
Yup. This guy:

North Korea's Kim Jong Un uses terrifyingly creative methods to kill enemies

From siccing wild dogs on his own uncle to gunning down his enemies with artillery meant for taking out planes, North Korea's Kim Jong Un has built a reputation for dispatching with extreme prejudice all those who cross him.

While some of the terrifying methods of execution have never been confirmed, the mere mention of them is sure to keep his inner circle in line - and any potential rivals quiet, say experts. A confirmed favorite tactic, blowing people away with anti-aircraft guns, leave victims unrecognizable.

"Because there are several guns bound together, it would be hard to find the body after firing it once," Hong Hyun-ik, chief researcher at the Sejong Institute, a security think tank based in Seoul, told local broadcaster YTN in 2015. "It's really gruesome."

..Perhaps the most frightening method of execution ordered by the 33-year-old, third-generation dictator is allowing a pack of starving dogs to devour enemies. In one notable case, the victim was purportedly Kim's own uncle.

Jang Song-thaek was thought of as a father figure to Kim Jong Un, and served as the second-in-command to the supreme leader. But when he ran afoul of Kim in 2013 for "anti-state acts" and "double-dealing," his familial ties couldn't save him from his nephew's wrath.

How Jang died may never come to light, but a rumor that he was fed to dogs was widely reported. Other reports subsequently claimed that Jang was likely executed by anti-aircraft guns before his body was incinerated by flamethrowers.

The gout-addled Kim also had several of his uncle's cronies killed, and was reportedly "very drunk" when he gave the orders.
More, and this is from FOX News so it can't be fake news:
May 2018
East Coast Of U.S.A.
We are just waiting for that Nobel Peace Prize......:yahoo::yahoo::yahoo::yahoo:
To Camelot: A fair guestimate of the number of people who ever hear of the Nobel PP is less than 2 percent of the 6 billion adults in the world. The number of people who care drops to a minute fraction of 1 percent.

If President Trump actually gets the prize he should tell the Nobel Committee “I accept. Send the check and forget the rest.”

President Trump is in trouble when Nutso is pulling for him:

Even Pelosi Admits Trump Could Qualify for Nobel Peace Prize: ‘Let’s See How It Goes’
APR 30, 2018 | 12:59 PM

Over the years, I posted messages critical of the history of Nobel Peace Prizes. Calling it a Peace Prize is a misnomer to begin with because the PP is often awarded for salesmanship rather than achievement. To put it more succinctly it is based on selling the absence of war rather than predicated on preventing governments from engaging in institutional murder.

Remember that Obama got a Nobel Peace Prize for his touchy-feely rhetoric. The things he did, namely getting New START ratified, is more than the rhetoric of a demagogue. His betrayals justified his Nobel to the International community if not to Americans.

Nobel Peace Prizes now favor environmental hustlers. Gorbachev founded Green Cross International. The best Gorby joke is that he got his PP for getting booted out on his ass by his own people.

When Ronald Reagan led the fight that defeated the Soviet Union it was a bold stroke for peace, yet no Peace Prize was forthcoming.

PP winner Wangari Maathai founded the Green Belt Movement.

Top global warming hustler, Al Gore, shared his 2007 prize with the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

SCARY QUESTION: What if the Nobel Committee gives the Peace Prize to Trump and Kim?

A couple more environmental winners and they can name a new category: Nobel Prize for Environmental Bullshit?

Since the end of WWI people with a connection to the League of Nations and its successor, the U.N., have probably won more Nobel Peace Prizes than the New York Yankees won pennants. Maybe that is the reason the world is far from peaceful!

There is no doubt that global government advocates have always had the inside track to Nobel Peace Prizes going all the way back to the early nineteen-hundreds; Socialism’s early years in the U.S. as well as awarding the first Nobel Peace Prize in 1901. I doubt very much if anyone who believed in a world populated by sovereign nations ever had a chance of winning a Nobel Peace Prize.

The PP is clearly a political trophy. No one denies it. The Nobel Peace Prize, awarded by the NORWEGIAN parliament, has always been recognized as a political award:

Peace Prize winners should never be held in the same high esteem as those who get theirs for actually doing something useful in the exact sciences. I have the utmost respect for the men and women who win a Nobel Prize for physics, chemistry, physiology, or medicine

I refuse to give literature and economics the same respect the exact sciences deserve. Literature is especially troubling. Toni Morrison, black American woman and Nobel Prize Winner for literature (1993) was the first person to see through Bill Clinton’s white epidermis. “Clinton is the first black American president” was a Morrison epiphany. (Obama ran under false pretenses if Morrison is correct about Clinton.) The troubling thing about Nobel prizes for literature is that people who think like Morrison write books.

If the prize for literature is a political joke the prize for economics is five acts of vaudeville.

The first Nobel Prize in Economics was awarded in 1969. In other words it was invented. Alfred Nobel never heard of it. The joke is that the award for the Nobel Prize in Economics is paid by the Sveriges Riksbank.

The Sveriges Riksbank pays the Nobel Foundation for the use of the name. The reason is obvious. Nobel Prize for Economics sounds better than Sveriges Riksbank Prize for Economics. It is like Betty Crocker paying a fee to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences so they can call a baking award an Oscar. A prize awarded by a European bank is more obscene than the propaganda prizes for “peace” and literature.

Parenthetically, economists always remind me of priests. The only significant difference between the two is that religious missionaries preach to the masses while economists preach to those who control the masses.

Not to be outdone by men of the cloth, economists convinced First World governments that economists are the only ones who know enough about money to talk about it in the halls of power.

NOTE: Agent 006 & 7/8ths reported that the Norwegians wanted to give Obama a second one, while the Swedes wanted him to return the first one:

One Last Treasonous Act=> Obama Approves Uranium Shipment to Iran – Enough to Build 10 Nuclear Weapons
Jim Hoft
Jan 9th, 2017 12:00 pm
Here are a few winners adored by the global government crowd:

Ralph Bunche (1904 - 1971) got his PP in 1950 for his work on the United Nations Palestine Commission. In light of what is happening over there these days his heirs should return the money.

Another “winner” worth mentioning is Philip John Noel-Baker (1889-1982), a British politician who helped draft the Covenant of the League of Nations (1919) and, also, the United Nations Charter (1945). Noel-Baker won the 1959 Nobel Peace Prize.

League of Nation global villagers were determined not to be denied success the second time around. Still promoting the same old Wilsonian crapola they moved their desks over to the United Nations in 1945. In short: Same jockey —— different horse.

When Wangari Maathai (1940 - 2011) won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2004 she was identified as a “Kenyan ecologist.” I knew what a Kenyan was, but I was not sure what an ecologist did? I soon learned that stopping deforestation was another environmental con job on par with global warming.

NOTE: Wangari Maathai is credited with planting a million trees! Think about the amount of time it would take to plant a million of anything. I doubt if Johnny Appleseed had enough time to spread a million apple tree seeds around let alone plant them.

Environmental wack jobs are one thing, but Wangari should have been over the screwball column when she said the West created HIV in a lab. I do not know if that unproven charge was considered by the Nobel Awards Committee along with human Rights and the evils of deforestation. I do know that if a real scientist made such a statement without proof he or she would be ostracized by fellow scientists.

Students are right without a reason:

Not giving Trump the PP is the best thing the Nobel Committee can do for him.
Last edited:
May 2018
East Coast Of U.S.A.

i am puzzled over media reporting on this one:

north korea has dropped its long-held demand that the united states withdraw forces from south korea in exchange for denuclearization, south korean president moon jae-in said thursday.

The united states has about 28,000 troops stationed in south korea, a presence that has long irked north korean leader kim jong un.​

north korea drops withdrawal of us forces as condition of denuclearization, moon says
by euan mckirdy
updated 2:25 am et, fri april 20, 2018

media mouths talk about the singapore summit as though keeping u.s. Troops in south korea is non-negotiable to the little fat guy with the bad haircut. The mouths neither confirmed, nor denied, the truth of south korean president moon jae-in’s bombshell. The mouths never mention it at all. (i hope president trump pulls them all out.)

regardless of kim jong-un’s druthers he got the memo from xi jinping. China never wanted u.s. Troops out of south korea because their presence guarantied peace without victory which, in turn, gave china the time to grow in military strength.

note: the korean war was wilson’s first peace without victory war:

first world - primary documents - peace without victory, 22 january 1917

china blinked by announcing u.s. Troops can stay in south korea. That blink gave president trump a golden opportunity to upset china’s military objectives with these three foreign policy changes:

1. Sit down with south korea and inform them that he is pulling out our troops.

2. Tell china and north korea “forget about peace without victory the next time the u.s. Military comes calling. If you ever invade south korea again you will be up to your eyeballs in an all-out war.”

3. After the war ends divide china into a dozen or so sovereign nations.

I am certain this country’s allies will pitch in a lot faster in an all-out war against two communist countries than they will in another peace without victory war.

Moon jae-in’s statement dropped off the radar screen. To me, pulling u.s. Troops out of south korea was a godsend. It is a complicated issue to be sure, but dough bandow cuts to the chase in seven words:

in other words, withdrawal would be win-win.​

should u.s. Trade troops in south korea for north korea’s nukes?
Doug bandow
may 27, 2018, 12:05 am

happily, democrats are in a tight spot. They want what china wants. Should democrats openly oppose troop withdrawal democrats can finally be asked the question i posed decades ago:

Do you oppose the korean war in hindsight?

If they answer “yes” they admit that fighting against communism’s expansion is what they oppose.

If they answer “no.” ask them why not? Since korea and vietnam were fought for the same reason.

finally, kim jong-un playing lucy —— again —— gives president trump an opportunity to change the city. Chinese make up 76 percent of singapore’s population. Naturally, chinese control the government. I doubt if they will have any influence over the negotiations, but i would not give china the slightest edge.

In the interest of full disclosure i must say that way back in the late fifties and sixties singapore was always my favorite city in the far pacific, but not for its government. I do not know what singapore is today.