Video: Korean War: 600,000 Tons of American Bombs on the North. Every City was Destroyed

Video: Korean War: 600,000 Tons of American Bombs on the North. Every City was Destroyed

By mlovmo,

This episode details the UN bombing campaign over North Korea and the results for the people on the ground.

The majority of civilians killed in the Korean War were killed in North Korea by air attack. (This segment on the bombing of North Korea was censored from the US version of this documentary.).

Extensive war crimes committed by the United States. 

.

Advertisements

The US dilemma in the Iranian nuclear file المأزق الأميركي في الملف النووي الإيراني

The US dilemma in the Iranian nuclear file

أكتوبر 20, 2017

Written by Nasser Kandil,

The US President Donald Trump has chosen his weakest points and the strongest points of the Iranian force in order to fight with Iran; he made the Iranian nuclear file an issue that is full of the files of disagreements with Iran regarding its missile program, the security of Israel, and the regional role of Iran, towards the future of Hezbollah and its resistance, he was about to show the US weakness in the international arena. The agreement on the Iranian nuclear file is an international convention that does not accommodate the US approach of the disputing bilateral files with Iran. the officials of Trump’s administration declared about their sticking to the agreement and the seeking to modify it as they said, they are aware that the modification according to their terms is impossible, because their demands collide with a dispute on the description with at least two main partners namely Russia and China, and Iran for sure whether concerning the missile program of Iran, the regional role of Iran, or the role of Hezbollah. If this modification is impossible then the fate of the US movement will be the failure.

The second problem of America is European regarding the bad choice. Europe which participated Washington in its reservations on the missile program of Iran and its concern for Israel’s security, and its anticipation for disciplining Hezbollah, but it does not want to affect the nuclear agreement, because this agreement is its way for the positive partnership with Iran economically and politically in achieving the stability in Syria and Iraq in particular, in order to prevent the growth of terrorism and its rootedness on one hand. It became stable that there will be no security in Europe without extinguishing the wars in Syria and Iraq, furthermore no extinguishing of these wars without Iran and even without Hezbollah. On the other hand, it resorts to Iran to maintain stability and to return the lifecycle as the prevention of the flow of the immigrants and the displaced people to Europe. The Demographic stability of Europe has become the way to preserve the unity of its entities, after the destabilization resulted from the displacement has led to the exit of Britain from the European Union. The displacement leads to dual opposing growth of the racism of the Nazi –right and the incubating environment of extremism among the displaced and immigrants, without stopping the displacement, the communities of Europe will be threatened of disintegration and the unity of its entities will be threatened, just for that it puts aside its reservations and tries to protect the agreement with Iran, it sees it as a way for getting out of recession, after Washington has monopolized the Gulf’s money to resolve its crises, so what are left are Iran , Syria, and Iraq.

The third problem of America regarding the nuclear agreement with Iran is Asian in terms of the future of the engagement with North Korea from two opposite perspectives, if the content of the message headed to Iran was that there is no usefulness in the positioning under the ceiling of the international law which the major countries that claim to guard it, refuse to apply it on themselves and thus do not commit to, and that the path of North Korea is beneficial through rebellion and threat. Although Iran which possesses in geography, capabilities, and population what is not possessed by North Korea and thus it can rebel and threaten, it accepted to stick to the peaceful nuclear file and to present the necessary guarantees for that. But the superpowers of the world showed it that the conventions are valueless, and sticking to the law does not benefit, while the military nuclear deterrence of North Korea protects it. In contrast, America tells North Korea that the example of the Iranian commitment calls to avoid falling into the trap of accepting understandings that lead to non- possession of nuclear weapons, because the commitment does not ensure the dealing according to law and conventions, since the force is the only way understood by Washington, therefore the result of the US movement is encouraging those who advocate possessing the nuclear weapons among the Iranians and weakening those who advocate going to understandings, as well as complicating the dialogue and negotiation with North Korea, This makes Japan and North Korea avoid including their votes to the advocates of the US position, and makes Seoul and Tokyo aware that the nuclear agreement with Iran is the only example to persuade Pyongyang to abandon the nuclear weapons, provided to be an attractive and  encouraging example.

Trump has not succeeded in attracting advocates but Israel and Saudi Arabia, if the US-Saudi- Israeli alliance was enough to form a balance of power against Iran, despite the big differences between the nuclear agreement and others, it would be enough to resolve the situation of Syria, and it would be another agreement than the one we know.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

 

المأزق الأميركي في الملف النووي الإيراني

أكتوبر 16, 2017

ناصر قنديل

-اختار الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب أضعف حلقات قوته وأقوى حلقات القوة الإيرانية ساحة للنزال بينه وبين إيران، فجعل الملف النووي الإيراني وعاء يتسع لملفات الخلاف مع إيران حول برنامجها الصاروخي وأمن «إسرائيل» ودور إيران الإقليمي، وصولاً لمستقبل حزب الله ومقاومته. كان الدعسة الناقصة التي ستتكفّل بتظهير الضعف الأميركي على الساحة الدولية. فالاتفاق على الملف النووي الإيراني معاهدة دولية لا تتسع لاستيعاب المقاربة الأميركية للملفات الخلافية الثنائية مع إيران، وبعدما صرّح مسؤولو إدارة ترامب بالتمسك بالاتفاق والسعي لتعديله كما قالوا، يدركون أن التعديل بشروطهم مستحيل، لأن مطالبهم تصطدم بخلاف على التوصيف مع شريكين أساسيين على الأقل، هما روسيا والصين وإيران حكماً، سواء حول البرنامج الصاروخي لإيران أو حول دور إيران الإقليمي أو حول دور حزب الله، وإذا كان هذا التعديل مستحيلاً، ولا تعديل سواه، فيصير مصير الحركة الأميركية هو الفشل.

مشكلة أميركا الثانية في الاختيار السيئ، أوروبية. فأوروبا التي قد تشارك واشنطن بتحفظاتها على البرنامج الصاروخي لإيران وقلقها على أمن «إسرائيل»، وتطلعها لتقليم أظافر حزب الله، لا تريد المساس بالاتفاق النووي ولا تعريضه للاهتزاز، لأنه طريقها للتشارك الإيجابي مع إيران اقتصادياً وسياسياً في تحقيق الاستقرار في سورية والعراق خصوصاً، منعاً لنمو الإرهاب وتجذره من جهة. وقد صار ثابتاً أنه لا أمن لأوروبا من دون إطفاء الحروب في سورية والعراق، ولا إطفاء لهذه الحروب من دون إيران، بل ومن دون حزب الله. ومن جهة ثانية الاستعانة بإيران لحفظ الاستقرار وإعادة دورة الحياة كطريق لمنع تدفق المهاجرين والنازحين نحو أوروبا. وقد صار استقرار أوروبا الديمغرافي طريق الحفاظ على وحدة كياناتها، بعدما تكفل الاهتزاز الناجم عن النزوح بخروج بريطانيا من الاتحاد الأوروبي، ويتكفّل مسلسل النزوح بنمو متقابل مزدوج، لعنصرية اليمين النازي، والبيئة الحاضنة للتطرف بين النازحين والمهاجرين، ومن دون وقف النزوح تجد أوروبا التهديد لتفتت مجتمعاتها، وتهديد وحدة كياناتها. ولهذا تضع جانباً تحفظاتها، وتتجه لحماية الاتفاق مع إيران، لا بل تراه طريقاً للخروج من الكساد، وقد احتكرت واشنطن مال الخليج لحل أزماتها، وما بقي لأوروبا إلا إيران وسورية والعراق.

-مشكلة أميركا الثالثة في فتح ملف الاتفاق النووي مع إيران، آسيوية، لجهة مستقبل التجاذب مع كوريا الشمالية، من زاويتين متقابلتين. فإذا كانت الرسالة الموجهة لإيران مضمونها أن لا جدوى من التموضع تحت سقف القانون الدولي، الذي لا تلتزمه الدول العظمى أصلاً التي تدّعي حراسته وترفض تطبيقه على أنفسها. والرسالة لإيران هنا هي أن طريق كوريا الشمالية هو المجدي بالتمرّد والتهديد، وإيران إن تمردت وهددت تملك في الجغرافيا والمقدرات والسكان ما لا تملكه كوريا الشمالية، ورغم ذلك ارتضت طريق التمسك بملف نووي سلمي وقدّم ما يلزم من ضمانات لذلك، وتأتي الدولة العظمى الأولى في العالم وتقول لها المعاهدات لا قيمة لها، والالتزام بالقانون لا يقدّم ولا يؤخّر، بينما الردع النووي العسكري لكوريا الشمالية يحميها، وبالمقابل تقول اللغة الأميركية لكوريا الشمالية أن مثال الالتزام الإيراني يدعو لتجنب الوقوع في فخ القبول بالتفاهمات المؤدية لعدم امتلاك السلاح النووي، لأن الالتزام لا يضمن تعاملاً بمقاييس القانون، والمعاهدات. فالقوة وحدها هي التي تفهمها واشنطن، وبالتالي، نتيجة الحركة الأميركية تشجيع دعاة امتلاك السلاح النووي بين الإيرانيين، وإضعاف دعاة الذهاب للتفاهمات، وكذلك تعقيد الحوار والتفاوض مع كوريا الشمالية. وهذا ما جعل اليابان وكوريا الجنوبية تتجنّبان ضم صوتيهما لمؤيدي الموقف الأميركي، وسيول وطوكيو تدركان أن الاتفاق النووي مع إيران هو النموذج الوحيد الذي يمكن عبره إقناع بيونغ يانغ بالتخلّي عن السلاح النووي، شرط أن يكون مثالاً مغرياً ومشجّعاً.

-لم ينجح ترامب بجذب مؤيدين إلا «إسرائيل» والسعودية. ولو كان التحالف الأميركي السعودي «الإسرائيلي» كافياً لتشكيل ميزان قوة بوجه إيران، لكان، رغم الفوارق الكبيرة بين حال الاتفاق النووي وسواه، كافياً لحسم سورية، وعندها لكان اتفاق غير الاتفاق الذي نعرفه.

Related Videos

Related Articles

The Emerging Multipolar World with The Saker: Cold Wars, Hot Wars

CatherineThe Solari Report on September 7, 2017 at 9:09 am · 

https://player.vimeo.com/video/232087154?color=ffe400&title=0&byline=0&portrait=0

Read the Transcript

Read the transcript of The Emerging Multipolar World with The Saker: Cold Wars, Hot Wars here (PDF)

Listen to the Interview MP3 audio file

Download the Interview audio file

sr20170907_InterviewHQ.mp3 (auto-download)
sr20170907_InterviewHQ.mp3 (Right click to download in Safari)
When you get billions in aid and your weapons resupplied and your ammunition stock resupplied, you don’t learn the lesson that war is bad and nobody wins.”  ~King Abdullah II 

By Catherine Austin Fitts

This week on the Solari Report, Saker joins me for our quarterly review of the geopolitical landscape.  Items on our list to cover:

 

In Let’s Go to the Movies, I will review Oliver Stone’s Putin Interviews – four hours of interviews with Vladimir Putin conducted by Stone between 2015 and 2017.

In Money & Markets this week I will discuss the latest in financial and geopolitical news. Please make sure to e-mail or post your questions for Ask Catherine.

Talk to you Thursday!

Related Reading

Statista.com – Military Expenditures

Anglo-American War Plan for North Korea

By Finian Cunningham

October 12, 2017 “Information Clearing House” – The United States and Britain – the two countries responsible for so many recent wars and conflicts – are at it again. This time, the diabolical double-act has North Korea in its sights, despite the risk that such an attack could ignite a global nuclear war.

Over the past week, US President Donald Trump has sharpened his bellicose rhetoric towards North Korea, now declaring that “only one thing works” in regard to the security crisis over the Korean Peninsula. That “one thing”, according to Trump, is evidently the “military option”.

For the past several months, the Trump administration has indeed repeatedly threatened the North Korean state led by Kim Jong-un with military force over the latter’s nuclear weapons program. But the American threats have always been conveyed in the context that other options, including diplomacy, were also being considered, or even preferred.

Now Trump is openly admitting that the apparent option of diplomacy is no longer on the table. It’s a belated admission by Trump that the diplomatic option was only ever a cynical charade, not under genuine consideration.

Washington is instead moving towards war with North Korea.

Adding to the gravity of the moment are reports in the British media that Britain’s military chiefs have drawn up plans for deploying forces along with the US against North Korea.

British military chiefs are quoted as saying that they are ready to dispatch a new aircraft carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth, as well as several destroyers and frigates, to the Korean Peninsula in support of its US ally.

Just last week Britain’s defense secretary Michael Fallon also delivered a belligerent speech to the Conservative Party conference in which he declared readiness to order “warships, aircraft and troops” in support of the US and other allies.

Fallon repeated earlier warnings that his government was fully prepared to order a first-strike nuclear attack against North Korea or any other “enemy state”.

The British minister accused North Korea of threatening Britain’s national security, saying that “Manchester and London are closer to Pyongyang than Los Angeles”.

Fallon’s shrill rhetoric echoed the scaremongering claims once made by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair back in 2003 when he justified the imminent Anglo-American war on Iraq because then Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was allegedly capable of mounting a missile attack on Britain “within 45 minutes”. Blair’s war pretext turned out to be a vile fraud.

Britain’s long-standing readiness to join in American military operations around the world is a convenient political-legal cover that gives the impression of “an international coalition” acting in supposed defense of “the international community”.

But the historical record shows that such Anglo-American militarism is nothing other than illegal aggression carried out by Washington and London, which has led to the ruination of whole nations and the unleashing of sectarian conflicts and terrorism. The British-aided American wars against Afghanistan and Iraq in 2001 and 2003 continue to wreak havoc across the Middle East today.

Yet, in spite of these disasters, not to say criminal wars, Britain’s defense secretary “Sir” Michael Fallon arrogantly asserts that “we should not be squeamish” about committing to further military deployments elsewhere, and in particular with regard to North Korea.

This coupling of American and British military power focused on North Korea is an ominous sign that the Anglo-American war machine is cranking up again.

Earlier this month, President Trump issued an extraordinary rebuke to his secretary of state Rex Tillerson over the latter’s public comments about pursuing diplomatic contacts with North Korea. Trump rebuffed Tillerson for “wasting his time” in negotiations with Pyongyang.

Since then Trump has gone on to sharpen the rhetoric to the point now where he is saying the US is considering “only one option” – a military strike on North Korea.

Last week, while hosting US military leaders and their spouses at a dinner in the White House, Trump made the menacing remark that the gathering was the “calm before the storm”. He subsequently refused to clarify what he meant by that cryptic remark.

A couple of days later on October 7, Trump then declared through his usual Twitter feed that diplomacy with North Korea was over. He said the past 25 years of diplomacy under previous administrations had failed, adding, “only one thing will work!”

This is while the US is sending the USS Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier and a full battle group of warships towards the Korean Peninsula to commence joint operations with allied South Korean forces over the coming days.

It also follows this week long-distance practice bombing raids by US strategic B1-B Lancer warplanes over the Korean Peninsula. It was reportedly the first time that these US warplanes were accompanied by both South Korean and Japanese fighter jets in the same maneuver.

When Trump and his officials, including defense secretary James Mattis, have previously warned of using military force against North Korea they have let it be known that the action would be “overwhelming” and “catastrophic”. This can be understood to mean the US using nuclear weapons in any action against Pyongyang.

Trump is now positioning the US on an all-out war footing against North Korea by contriving a situation whereby diplomacy has been forfeited.

This is a heinous travesty. American diplomacy towards North Korea to settle the decades-old conflict on the Peninsula has never been genuinely pursued, not under Trump nor previous administrations.

Trump is accelerating US war plans on North Korea. US Pentagon chief James Mattis this week warned American forces to be ready for action and said military plans were being furnished for Trump. Mattis’ willingness to defer to Trump shows that this is a government policy, not merely the depraved recklessness of a lunatic president.

The fact too that Britain, America’s loyal war accomplice, is concurrently drawing up military contingencies over North Korea is a disturbing indicator of how far the Anglo-American war machine is gearing up.

Both Russia and China have repeatedly urged restraint by all parties. This week, Moscow said the US naval build-up around the Korean Peninsula was a dangerous escalation. Russia also said that the newly deployed US anti-missile THAAD system in South Korea was targeting its territory, as well as that of North Korea and China.

If the US and Britain go ahead with their war plans on North Korea, as seems likely, they will ignite a war that threatens the whole planet.

How quintessentially Anglo-American is the arrogance and criminality.

Finian Cunningham has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. He is a Master’s graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. He is also a musician and songwriter. For nearly 20 years, he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organisations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent.

This article was originally published by Strategic Culture Foundation –

What on earth is going on, don’t we have better things to spend money on? Britain Draws Up Battle Plan for North Korea War

Britain Draws Up Battle Plan for North Korea War

Officials Plan to Deploy Large Number of Ships to Korean Peninsula

If the United States attacks North Korea, Britain is expecting to be quickly sucked into the conflict. This has UK military officials drafting plans for how they would react to the American attack.

We have plenty of ships to send,” one of the planners told the press, and the brand new aircraft carrier the HMS Queen Elizabeth not scheduled to be brought into service until 2020, could be activated immediately, without flight trials, to be rushed to the Pacific to take part in the war.

That these plans are being developed underscores how seriously British officials see the risk of a war breaking out in Korea. With President Trump regularly threatening to “totally destroy” North Korea, British officials appear to see the threat as a real one.

Whether Britain’s Navy would be needed in the war is less clear. The US already has a massive Navy, especially compared to North Korea, and such a war is likely to almost immediately boil down to massive mortar and missile fire back and forth, including potential nuclear exchanges

‘Trump could lead US to accidental war’

‘Trump could lead US to accidental war’

Trump’s policy on North Korea could lead US to accidental war: Senator

US Democratic Senator Brian Schatz
US Democratic Senator Brian Schatz

Democratic Senator Brian Schatz from Hawaii has said US President Donald Trump’s policy of brinkmanship against North Korea could lead the United States toward an accidental war, as tensions rise between Washington and Pyongyang.

Schatz urged Americans in a series of tweets on Sunday night to heed Republican Senator Bob Corker’s comment that Trump could lead the United States toward “World War III.”

“There’s a tendency to wonder about the politics of Corker’s interview. Ignore that, and listen to his warnings about an accidental war,” Schatz stated.

The senator went on to point out why the people should be concerned about the possibility of a war between the US and North Korea.

“War on Korean Peninsula could shut down trade to and from Asia for months or years,” Schatz said.

“War on the Korean Peninsula would cause millions of lives to be lost,” he added.  “There are nearly 200,000 Americans living in South Korea and Japan.”

Schatz’s tweets came after Corker, the Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in an interview with The New York Times on Sunday that Trump’s measures could put the US “on the path to World War III.”

The senator complained that the president treats the country like “a reality show” and acts “like he’s doing ‘The Apprentice’ or something.”

Trump meanwhile continues his aggressive rhetoric against the North Korean leadership. On Saturday, he claimed that a diplomatic approach over the past 25 years “hasn’t worked” and that Pyongyang has made “fools of US negotiators.”

“Sorry, but only one thing will work!” Trump said in his tweet.

In a speech to the UN General Assembly last month, Trump warned  North Korean leader Kim Jong-un that the United States, if threatened, would “totally destroy” his country of 26 million people.

In response, Kim said Trump will “pay dearly” for threatening to destroy North Korea.

He added that Trump is “a rogue and a gangster fond of playing with fire,” who is “unfit to hold the prerogative of supreme command of a country.”

Kim described the US president as “mentally deranged” and warning he would “pay dearly” for threatening to destroy his country.

North Korea has conducted several nuclear tests and missile test-launches in response to US threats against the country.

The North Korean leader ordered the production of more rocket warheads and engines in September, shortly after the United States suggested that its threats of military action and sanctions were having an impact on Pyongyang’s behavior.

US, North Korea Both Make Threats, But Only One Has Killed Millions of the Other’s People

US, North Korea Both Make Threats, But Only One Has Killed Millions of the Other’s People

by Eoin Higgins

For the consumer of US corporate media, the idea of a nuclear armed North Korea is a terrifying threat. Almost every day for the last two weeks, print and television media have amped up the potential danger of a devastating military strike from the isolated peninsular nation.

“North Korea Keeps Up Its Provocations,” read a headline at The Atlantic (9/14/17). “North Korea Threatens to ‘Sink’ Japan, Reduce US to ‘Ashes and Darkness,’” reported CNBC (9/14/17). Vox (9/22/17) told readers “Why North Korea’s Latest Threats Are Far More Serious Than Its Typical Bluster.”

The North Korean government is not operating in a vacuum. Yet the reasons for North Korea’s militarization—the country has the fourth largest army in the world—and the historical context for its conflict with the United States are seldom honestly discussed in corporate media.

The Korean War, in which the United States invaded the North on behalf of South Korea,  claimed the lives of over 2 million North Koreans. The US dropped as many munitions as it had dropped on the entire Pacific Theater in World War II—a four-year conflict ranging over tens of millions of square miles, as opposed to the 46,541 square miles of North Korea—and the war has never been officially ended.

After citing a source who says North Korea is “paranoid that the United States is going to eliminate them,” Wired‘s Brian Barrett (9/19/17) wrote, “One can trace that paranoia back to the Korean War”—followed by a reasonable description of why the fear of attack was justified. “In 1950, then–US President Harry Truman said that he was prepared to authorize the use of nuclear weapons to end the conflict.” The millions of actual deaths North Korea had suffered during the war—out of a population at the time of less than 10 million—were not noted as contributing to the country’s “paranoia.”

As Hyun Lee put it to FAIR’s CounterSpin (4/7/17), the circumstances surrounding US/North Korea relations make the latter’s desire for powerful weapons understandable—even rational:

We’ve become very confused in the United States, because the mainstream media like to exaggerate the North Korean nuclear threat, but we never get news of what the US has been doing over the past decades. And we should be very clear that what this is all about is actually US nuclear first-strike advantage against North Korea, and North Korea reacting to that by developing its deterrence capability.

The US and South Korea hold annual joint military exercises on the North Korean border—exercises that are explicitly rehearsals for an eventual invasion of the North. As recently as September 23, the US sent a bomber off the North Korean coast—a show of force designed to ratchet up tensions. It would be good if the corporate media used some of their much touted but little practiced objectivity to make this context clear to audiences.

NYT: With Combative Style and Epithets, Trump Takes America First to the U.N.

“President Trump brought the same confrontational style of leadership he has used at home to the world’s most prominent stage,” the New York Times (9/19/17) reported.

President Donald Trump’s September 19 speech at the United Nations, in which he threatened to “totally destroy” North Korea, fueled the conflict between the two nations. The president’s statement was criticized in the corporate media for its bellicose and aggressive nature—but as with many of the president’s actions, it was the tone and not the substance that was so offensive to the nation’s news providers.

The New York Times (9/19/17) called that a “confrontational style of leadership.” Vox‘s Alex Ward (9/20/17) described Trump’s remarks as “belligerent rhetoric.” “Trump’s perhaps oddly chosen colloquialisms masked what was a pretty astounding escalation of his rhetoric when it comes to North Korea,” said the Washington Post‘s Aaron Blake (9/19/19).

Yet even with the acknowledgement that Trump had gone farther in his language than his predecessors, corporate media ignore the context in which these threats are made. US news reports don’t reflect the history between the two countries when they write headlines like New York magazine’s “Wait, Are We at War With North Korea Now?” (9/25/17). And that lack of historical context can lead to the San Diego Union-Tribune (9/22/17) publishing an opinion piece on “North Korea’s Weird History of Insulting US Officials” without confronting the history of the two nations that might have led to that language.

Though North Korea surely provides excuses for bombastic rhetoric and threats from America, the power differential is obvious to anyone who is paying attention to the tensions between the two countries. The US controls the majority of the earth’s oceans, has military bases in over 70 countries, and possesses enough firepower to destroy the world many times over. By contrast, North Korea has an antiquated military (regardless of its large number of soldiers) and essentially one powerful ally in China—a country that just this week joined the US in imposing economic sanctions on North Korea.

Lee again:

Since [2006], what the United States has tried to do is stall North Korea’s nuclear development, tying it up through negotiations that basically went nowhere, at the same time constantly threatening to bring about North Korea’s collapse, through sanctions that were crippling its economy, and also military exercises that were very provocative. They simulate war plans that now include the decapitation of the North Korean leadership, and include nuclear first strike.

In short, North Korea is isolated and on edge. The insular regime faces a major threat to its south and an over six-decade faceoff with the world’s most powerful country. That doesn’t excuse North Korea’s actions — firing missiles over Japan isn’t a productive move — but it does provide context for decisions made by North Korea. As long as US corporate media ignore that history and the power differential, the “threat” to the US from North Korea will be overhyped, while the actual military might of the US is downplayed.

Eoin Higgins is a journalist and historian from Western Massachusetts. You can find more of his work at eoinhiggins.com and follow him on twitter at @EoinHiggins. Reprinted, with permission, from FAIR.

%d bloggers like this: