Kim Jong-un says he's going to fire four missiles just outside Guam's territorial waters. Very provocative but not actually attacking the US colony because they would fall in international waters. It's difficult to see how Trump could respond. Dropping a missile into international waters near North Korea would be childish tit-for-tat, whilst attacking Korea itself would mark the US as the instigator of a war. And they can't take any military action without South Korea's agreement. So Kim Jong-un has nothing to lose by firing the missiles. On the other hand, he's publicised it so much on state TV, he would be showing his hand before the event, and that doesn't make military sense. So, in my opinion, it's 50-50 whether he will do it. And if he does, America will just complain loudly and appear impotent.
However, I've read a number of political opinion articles recently that suggest that the only way Trump can recover as a president (given the ongoing investigations and his falling approval ratings) is a war - it's a proven phenomenon and certainly worked for Bush, Thatcher and many more. His supporters would certainly egg him on, if their comments on Facebook and other articles are anything to go by.
I'm not saying he'd instigate one, but he would certainly wouldn't turn down the opportunity of a show of strength, probably without thinking of the consequences. Both leaders have proved to be petulant, impulsive and narcissistic. And no sane person has hairstyles like that...
For the past several decades, America's aim has been to convert North Korea to Western ideology. During that time, China has continued to support North Korea because it wants to stop America's creeping ideology. It's not unlike the religious crusades of the Middle Ages, except that it's ideology instead of religion that is the motivation. Hence, there would be no world crisis and no threat of nuclear war if, 30 years ago, the US had stopped its drive for Western ideological government and had left North Korea to live peacefully without any threat of subversion.
It IS, frankly, quite unnverving that the US wants to dictate to the whole world which tune they should dance to - especially since a lot of American ideology is frankly not very likable (I have no more desire to live under a Christian theocracy than I do any other). Maybe we should all just live and let live? Though I sense that that is no longer an option .
I heard a bird cry, sharp and free. My name is Jordan.
So what were we supposed to do? Just let North Korea take South Korea? Haven't you considered that this might be more about what South Korea wants than "spreading American ideology"? Do you see South Koreans desperately trying to cross the demilitarized zone so they can live in North Korea, too, because North Koreans are so darn happy?
My point is that ruling without being elected does not necessarily make a person a despot. In fact, history suggests that virtually no king (or queen) was a despot. Your objection to Kim Jong-un's uncle ruling does not appear, therefore, to be valid.
Um are you serious Steve? You can't think of any Kings and Queens who were despots?!
I'm serious. Virtually no king (or queen) was a despot, is what I said. That means only a very small proportion were despots. In order to prove me false, you have to show that a goodly proportion of kings and queens were despots, which I don't think you can do.