Nèdeem Elmahjoub's blog

Liberals are criticizing the Korean summit from the Right See also A Murderous History of Korea

"Reasons include the United States' interest in maintaining lucrative arms deals with the Gulf states – primarily Saudi Arabia – and the fact that many U.S. politicians support bombing Iran (as demanded by the  right-wing Israeli leadership)." Middle East nightmare – made in Washington

But by far the most casualties were suffered by Koreans. US carpet bombing, largely unopposed, was the furnace that forged North Korea as a merciless and paranoid regime. “Over a period of three years or so, we killed off — what — 20 per cent of the population." Korean peace treaty would have to overcome decades of distrust

Pyongyang's brutalist architecture Brutal, indeed.  However, a city with no  visual pollution, no  neons and commercial advertising is not a bad thing. I believe the city of Sao Paulo, Brazil, also bans commercial advertising. 

A murderous history of Korea

An interesting take, but I don't agree with the one-sided prospect. North Korea: a story of isolation

"Americans have forgotten what we did to North Korea"

I thought that Paul Mason's focus was "Post-capitalism". "Post-capitalism" or barbarism should be accurate if one always keeps in mind how human society moves. Being thrown into barbarism on a bigger scale than in Syria or Rwanda, is thinkable. Is Mason kidding himself when he hopes that Theresa May should abide by the non-proliferation treaty? I think he knows better than me how national interests to be protected and how geopolitics necessitates having a monopoly or near monopoly of the means of violence. "Nuclear war has become thinkable again"

The United States and its allies oppose North Korea and Iran having nuclear weapons. The argument against North Korea may well be the same argument used against Iran. The non-prolifeartion treaty was signed in1962, i.e. after the most powerful states, the richest and of the so-called “free-world”, had already acquired nuclear weapons. Many people in the richest capitalist countries believe that since their countries are free and democratic, inherently, when their governments intervene abroad, that intervention is aimed for “the greater good.” If on the other side these governments make “mistakes”, future elected governments would correct later “correct” those “mistakes”. Other people go further by arguing that their goverments have a sort of a historical duty to some countries that they had occupied in the past. But to what extent does the historical record of the Western states support such argument? The asnwer to these questions comes from a meeting that took place at Speakers’ Corne