By It is pretty odd that Kim Jong-il is making a trip to China so soon after traveling there just three months ago. Everyone is speculating that it may be a meeting to discuss handing over power to his son Kim Jong-eun in the near term, which it may very well be. This trip could just simply be Kim trying to mooch more money out of the Chinese after the recent flooding in North Korea, which has also struck China quite heavily as well. I just think it is funny that Jimmy Carter got stiffed by Kim Jong-il:
A government official says that a special train belonging to North Korean leader Kim Jong-il left Manpo in the North and crossed the border toward Jian City in China early Thursday.
The official said the government had indications a few days ago that Kim might make the trip, adding that the North’s leader was confirmed to have crossed the border with China at midnight.
The official also said the government is trying to determine the purpose of Kim’s visit, noting that it’s been just three months since his last China trip.
The official said that it has not been confirmed whether Kim’s third son and heir apparent, Jong-un, is accompanying him on the visit.
The official also said that Kim’s destination may not be Beijing this time, citing the unusual route that the leader’s train has taken, which includes Manpo and Jian. Kim traditionally visits Beijing via Dandong, a Chinese border city. [KBS Global]
My guess is that he bypassed Dandong probably because of the heavy rains that have hit the area. Anyway judging by the above picture Kim Jong-il looks like a dead man walking.
3:39 pm on August 26th, 2010 1
They released the American, too.
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/08/26/n…
3:42 pm on August 26th, 2010 2
Why is it funny that KJI "stiffed" Carter? It is difficult at best for me to think Carter visited KN with any political agenda. If you believe he did, you don't know much about Carter's relationship with the US Govt. Your reaction and apparent dislike for Carter is apparent, but you likely have no personal experience with him or his decisions and choose to align your political beliefs with someone elses' ideas instead of making your mind up yourself. I have never seen anyone logically argue their points of contention with Carter's life or his presidency. And I listen to a lot of people. I especially like those who pronounce their Christianity so vividly and then rebuke Carter because they don't know how strongly he professes Christianity and more importantly ACTS as a Christian.
The typical comments I get about Carter are:
He didn't free the hostages from Iran.
He gave away the Panama Canal.
He was a peanut farmer.
His brother was an alcoholic.
Of course, no one can explain any of the above. I equate their answer with someone who can recite the title of a book, but failed to read the text.
8:03 pm on August 26th, 2010 3
KJI fled Pyongyang because of the Carter (Corean) Curse™.
8:06 pm on August 26th, 2010 4
Lemmy, I don't loathe Carter at all (and I can see how his profound religious faith — conveniently overlooked by conservatives, as you mentioned — guides so many of his actions), but I know I could easily make a more thorough list of Why Conservatives Hate Carter than that.
He weakened the military as president, as ex-president he undermines US positions abroad (especially in the Middle East), he seems to cozy up to leftist leaders a bit too cozily, etc.
But he builds houses for the poor, and I like that.
8:20 pm on August 26th, 2010 5
Kushibo, I think you are right on the mark. Habitat for Humanity is a great system. The sweat equity portion of it is what is missing from so many social programs that help people in need along with slugs who won't get off their ass.
He just seems so senile so many times.
12:48 am on August 27th, 2010 6
#4 kushibo, I agree with you on Carter. The good and the bad.
#2 lemmy, I have one more for you: The "I asked my daugther Amy" event.
You're the leader of the free world and you need to ask your pre-teen daughter about world affairs? That's it, you're outahere.
As for religion, I know a few idiots that call themselve christians, muslims and fill in your own fav here. Some of you seem to think religion is everything, and only a conservative thing. Nancy Pelosi is the one who said that her favorite word is "the word". Which I thought was really funny.
Carter does good things with HfH. He also weakened the military. And his pre-teen daugther knew more of world affairs then he did.
But not to worry, Barry knows even less. Why? The very first Bow.
2:12 am on August 27th, 2010 7
Lemmy, I have personal experience with Carter and his decisions. I think I wrote some comments about him here some time back.
I was in the military when he was president.
"He weakened the military?" I think that has to be examined in the context of the times. He became President in a post war era. More importantly, in the post Vietnam War era. After any extensive military conflict there is a natural inclination to draw down the military. Even George Bush Sr. had to do it after the Cold War. But when Carter was president, the country was still in a post Vietnam funk. The military would have been reduced no matter who was president. The president can only work the the funds the Congress will allocate.
He received most of his criticism over the Iran Hostage Crisis, but even today, with the advantage of hindsight, I haven't heard anyone suggest what he should have done differently with the resources he had. I believe the Iranians released the hostages after our elections as a cynical demonstration of what they took to be their power affect our politics.
I was in Korea when Carter suggested a major troop reduction here, but he was easily convinced otherwise. He didn't hesitate to put us on DefCon 3 when President Park was assassinated, and made it clear to the North Korean, don't try anything.
He wasn't overly boisterous with his Christian beliefs. After the Playboy interview comment about "lust in his heart" he pretty much kept his religion to himself.
I respected then. I respect him more now.
3:27 am on August 27th, 2010 8
I so prefer someone who's religious but keeps it to himself in public life (in private life I don't care), than someone who's 'religious' and announces it publicly over and over, and he can't recall what Bible verse he read that morning, when asked by reporters…
9:44 am on August 27th, 2010 9
I think that's the same picture that was published when he went to China 3 months ago.
12:04 pm on August 27th, 2010 10
Lemmy #2 I'll write about some of the comments that you have heard about President Carter. However let me say that as terrible of a president as he was IMO he in his work for HFH has shown a Christian spirit & we can all be thankful that he went to NK to bring back that moron. 1st he didn't free the hostages from Iran. The Iranians were obviously unafraid of President Carter which was why they weren't released. Literally within minutes of President Reagan's swearing in the hostages were on their way home because the Iranians knew that the bombers were going to be on their way directly. 2nd he gave away the Panama Canal. That's actually not true, he paid the Panamanians money to take the canal that 20,000 Americans died building in return for Panamanian independence from Columbia. 3rd he was a peanut farmer which was true but that to me shows that he was a businessman, a good thing. 4th his brother, Billy was an alcoholic which was true but had nothing to do with his presidency. Somebody actually brewed a beer called Billy beer with his consent that sucked by the way. J. Carter had the religious folks votes & B. Carter brought in the rednecks. B. Carter had some questionable dealings with the Libyans btw.
12:36 pm on August 27th, 2010 11
Carter's biggest problem is that he weakened America… certainly in perception and possibly in reality.
It wasn't until Regan came in that America got its strength, and pride, back.
Carter was/is a nice guy… but most other leaders aren't… and they only understand the threat of a good azz kicking.
…and if you hate Obama's bow, you are REALLY going to hate Carter's kiss.
http://iconicphotos.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/7…
..and then there was the rabbit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter_rabbit_…
1:42 pm on August 27th, 2010 12
#10
"Literally within minutes of President Reagan’s swearing in the hostages were on their way home because the Iranians knew that the bombers were going to be on their way directly."
Hmmm. That was a common refrain back then. Nuke 'em. But let's see. The country had been overrun by fanatical university student followers of an Ayatolla. All of the formal government and military institutions had been dispossed. So help me out here. I have been involved in the military tasking order process and I'll grant that probably you have too. Help me find 3 targets to bomb that would have made a difference in that situation.
2:18 pm on August 27th, 2010 13
"Help me find 3 targets to bomb that would have made a difference in that situation."
That's what B-52s were for. You didn't NEED to find specific targets. Iran wasn't really in a position to defend themselves against the systematic loss of one city after another so they called it quits.
Well… yeah… that's the way I'd LIKE to remember history.
It was probably closer to Regan making a deal with them to keep the hostages until AFTER the election…
…and he would covertly supply arms if he was elected…
…maybe even with the hopes of funding Contras on the backside.
Hmmm…
2:41 pm on August 27th, 2010 14
JoeC #12. The statement that I made about the hostages being on their way home withing minutes of Reagan's inauguration is simply a fact. It is of course my guess that the reason was the fear of a Reagan ordered attack but it should be remembered that liberal critics of Reagan said that he was a 'warmonger'. I'm sure that it is more than a coincidence that the hostages were on their way home as soon as Reagan was sworn in. Reagan had made comments in the past about how we should have won the Vietnam war & it just seems reasonable to me that the Iranians may have thought that Reagan was a little off his rocker so prudence on their part would have been just let the hostages go. I don't know what targets would have been attacked, I would guess government ministries, oil fields, refineries, pipelines, airfields, ports, & military bases. I think the Iranians just didn't want to see thousands of bombs falling and the possibility of a ground invasion. A part of the timing of the hostage release could also have been to embarrass President Carter.
3:04 pm on August 27th, 2010 15
If you start with the premise that all the hostages were already forfeit, then yeah. Unleash the dogs.
In that case, we should have been doing the same thing with the Somali pirates.
6:17 pm on August 27th, 2010 16
I don't think Carter's presidency can be called anything but a failure. He was perceived as a weakling and when that perception is there other countries pull shit they normally wouldn't. The Soviets invaded Afghanistan, the Iranians overthrew the Shah and spat in America's face. Remember, Carter said he wouldn't leave the White House until the hostages were freed? If that ain't weak I don't know what is? I remember Johnny Carson making fun of Carter's refusal to leave the WH, Carter was a national JOKE.
Carter did make a few good moves though. He was truthful to the nation that we had a "crisis of confidence" and he made an executive order to conserve energy, which was necessary no matter how painful it was. Carter also took a trip to 3-Mile Island shortly after the meltdown, ending the panic.
In the end, Carter was a controversial one term president, America was tired of being kicked around and voted for Reagan in a landslide.
6:35 pm on August 27th, 2010 17
The Soviets invaded Afghanistan, the Iranians overthrew the Shah and spat in America’s face. Remember, Carter said he wouldn’t leave the White House until the hostages were freed? If that ain’t weak I don’t know what is? I remember Johnny Carson making fun of Carter’s refusal to leave the WH, Carter was a national JOKE.
During Bush43's administration, the Russians waged war with our ally Georgia, and gave intelligence support to Iraq at the beginning of the Iraq War.
As for the Iranians, do you really believe their overthrow of the Shah was timed for the Carter administration, or would they have done it when they did regardless of who was in the White House (what could Reagan have done to prevent it?)?
I think people will see what they want to see. Some will see, for example, Bush43 "standing up to terrorists" as a sign of strength, while others will see his failure to find Osama bin Laden and his accidental invasion of the wrong country a sign of ineffectualness.
7:07 pm on August 27th, 2010 18
#13,
7:22 pm on August 27th, 2010 19
Carter was correctly perceived as weak. Refusing to leave the White House is pathetic.
9:27 pm on August 27th, 2010 20
Reagan was strong? Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks…
10:11 pm on August 27th, 2010 21
Carter was a disaster for the free world, politically, militarily. He never met a leftist despot he didn't like. He shat on General Jack Singlaub, firing him from his post here in Korea BEFORE the good President had made a decision on reducing troop strength based on a comment the General made at an ROTC conference. He, Henry Kissinger, and Andrew Young weren't happy with Rhodesia electing Bishop Abel Muzorewa as the first native African leader of a transitional Zimbabwe-Rhodesia; it was only when the African communists were able to push Robert Mugabe to his "victory" in 1980 that these people were happy, despite obvious thuggery and intimidation among the native voters by Mugabe's gang.
As for "Christians" and "conservatives" being of the same stripe, not necessarily. Perhaps there is a correlation between the two. From what I have read on this board, most of those here who hate and loathe them and others who profess to being one, neither parties would recognize a Christian if he was pissing on your leg.
Jimmy Carter should stick to building houses with Habitat for Humanity, where he is doing much good for many people.