4 ms·

I find your arguments an incredible reach. Firstly, the people of North Korea have zero access to international media. They aren't reading their government's re

I find your arguments an incredible reach. Firstly, the people of North Korea have zero access to international media. They aren't reading their government's releases on CNN and puffing their chests in pride. Instead this really does seem like it's intended for the West (or moreso for the people of the West, hoping that fear can be instilled by the general population that the government must retrench). Hamfisted, hilariously ill conceived puffery, but it's not hard to imagine someone being in a space where this could be conceived as the best available option. Secondly, is there anyone who actually doubts the overwhelming, multi-magnitudes US military supremacy? Do they really need propaganda to push what is an enormous, rest-of-the-world-combined military spend (building up year after year)? The only rational complaint about the media is that it often grossly overstates the military might of the enemy.

grandalf 14y ago
Not sure how your remarks rebut any of the arguments I made.
- corresation 14y ago
  "It's intended for the N. Korean audience." Fundamentally ignorant comment that sets the tone for the rest of your commentary, which by and large is the sort of facile contrarianism common among outsider teenager looking for angle to feel superior over the commoner, however ill conceived.
  - grandalf 14y ago
    The NYT article asserts that KJU's actions are targeted at his domestic audience: “We’re convinced this is about Kim solidifying his place with his own people and his own military, who still don’t know him,” one senior administration official said Friday. My point was simply to put the NYT coverage in context. I think you misunderstand my intentions. Most Americans take seriously the kind of foreign affairs coverage the NYT article exemplifies, and I just wanted to point out the common themes to help immunize HN readers from it in the future. Yes it's fun to poke fun at KJU but that does not mean his foreign policy actions are irrational or that the adjectives used to describe him don't also apply at least as much to US leaders.

grandalf 14y ago

Not sure how your remarks rebut any of the arguments I made.

corresation 14y ago
"It's intended for the N. Korean audience." Fundamentally ignorant comment that sets the tone for the rest of your commentary, which by and large is the sort of facile contrarianism common among outsider teenager looking for angle to feel superior over the commoner, however ill conceived.
- grandalf 14y ago
  The NYT article asserts that KJU's actions are targeted at his domestic audience: “We’re convinced this is about Kim solidifying his place with his own people and his own military, who still don’t know him,” one senior administration official said Friday. My point was simply to put the NYT coverage in context. I think you misunderstand my intentions. Most Americans take seriously the kind of foreign affairs coverage the NYT article exemplifies, and I just wanted to point out the common themes to help immunize HN readers from it in the future. Yes it's fun to poke fun at KJU but that does not mean his foreign policy actions are irrational or that the adjectives used to describe him don't also apply at least as much to US leaders.