Originally Posted by
charliegolf
Listened to a SOAS prof being interviewed on the radio earlier. His view: the nukes and vehicles are a 'giant insurance policy' against a West instigated regime change. And that they have zero intent to use the missiles. Further, Kim is 'a young man having fun poking a stick in the American eye', safe in the knowledge they can't do much. Intersting slant.
CG
Apparently he is entirely rational and not stupid. Someone needs to explain that one to me because frankly when the rest of the world is growing increasingly concerned about your behaviour, surely the rational thing isn't to go out of your way to prove them right. There is no interest in instigating regime change, just ensuring stability. And yet everything he does seems to be driving towards the route of regime change. It frankly just doesn't compute on any sane level.
Furthermore, Mattis' statement was a very interesting upping of the rhetoric. POTUS' statement on fire and fury was off the cuff out of the political environment. Mattis' statement was carefully scripted and the idea of 'may' respond was very definitely removed in favour of 'will' respond with force. At a Regimental dinner a few years back, the guest of honour was a VVSO with huge experience of operating amongst politicians. He said something very interesting, but also very worrying in the current context: don't waste time trying to interpret what senior politicians are saying. They invariably mean exactly what they say, there is rarely a hidden meaning.
What was it Mattis said in Iraq? Something like 'I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes, if you f*** with me I'll kill you'. This is a Sec Def who means business, and I'd probably be paying more attention to his announcements than POTUS'.