Remember, that cold noodle soup dish is actually from North Korea

The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) announced earlier today that the Government of North Korea has sent a request to launch routes between Pyongyang and Seoul, the capital cities of North and South Korea, respectively.

Here is the article, file under “!”.  From a retweet by Adam Minter.


I have seen a documentary about it:

We weren't really aware of cold soup until my friend ordered some accidentally. His sad face as he faced beef soup on a bed of ice ..

It made the noodles comically snappy as well.

Spicy beef and leek soup is one of my favorites, but that is a (very) hot soup (in two ways).

That reckless tweeting's going to kill us all in a nuclear war, amirite?

Typo in the post title.

While there is cause for cautious optimism on Korea, what about Iran?

(And I think Kim's deal with Xi was what really mattered. An exit policy. He has a palatial exile guaranteed, and so can risk some change in Korea proper. That's the only way he doesn't risk the Qaddafi outcome with a future US administration (or even this one!))

What about Iran? Is it possible that the Iranians are the only virulent anti-israel power left, making them the favorite Islamist du jour among the anti-semite left?

Come now, since when did the Wahabists let the Iranian Shiites take the lead in reclaiming al-Quds?

Isn't the better catch:

1) elect Donald Trump to defeat the neo-cons

2) we are all neo-cons now!

I mean, didn't DT use the words "regime change" this week?

1) Donald Trump opposed Iraq, yay

2) regime change in Iran, yay!

Isn’t it s measure of how fat Trump has blundered into a modicum if success that progressives like Anonymous is reduced to this analysis?

Everybody wants regime change in Iran, except maybe some theocrats and Russia (maybe). Both sides of the aisle want regime change, as does just about every state in the ME. Neocons might invade to achieve this. Trump is not a neocon.

I am the real centrist, sir.

And still a moderate who does not want another endless war and occupation.

Maybe it is a sign of how far "no warmonger Hillary" conservatives have fallen that they love warmongery on the assumption that it is all win with no risk.

It depends on what is the definition of the word "moderate." Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are moderates, per my definition.

How could I tell if you're moderate? All I read is Trump Derangement.

My recent education comments would be considered right by the left.

On Rush and Hannity, har har. The angry men and their shows.

I think if we look past the BS, we have more in common than we care to admit.

Anyhow, those guys are all talk. Angry doesn't mean much unless it's accompanied by really loud noises.

As an aside, people who think being steadfastly anti-Trump makes you left are just dumb *and* tribal. A double point score.

Agreed. Disagreeing with Trump is a thought crime to Trumpworshippers.

Some good things may actually happen here with Korea, and if they do it's on Trump's watch and he'll get some credit and he will deserve some.

Where we are at:

Pompeo: “I think Chairman Kim [Jong Un] shares the objectives with the American people, I am convinced of that,” secretary of state says on @FoxNewsSunday

As I predicted (and I'm anti-Trump) before Trump won the elections, the biggest strength of Trump is his foreign policy stance vis-a-vis North Korea. Art of the deal! So North Korea will become, like Israel already is, a "clandestine" nuclear power, and that's acceptable (don't saber rattle, and keep some missiles of limited range, that cannot strike the USA, in your decrepit arsenal, with the understanding probably half of them won't work in a hot war).

Trump is battling 100% so far on foreign policy: he's battling for bilateral trade (as opposed to the traditional USA stance of unilateral free trade being good enough), he's outfoxed Kim, and recently he's even indicated--showing he reads my comments on this blog--that he's against grey market importation of drugs into the USA (this will, paradoxically, actually decrease drug costs in the USA if followed through, since the USA effectively pays for the rest of the world's drugs).


"the traditional USA stance of unilateral free trade ...": that's a grand joke to anyone who knows any history.

Weasel words Ray but thanks for pointing out that "since the USA effectively pays for the rest of the world's drugs"!

dearieme - May 13, 2018 at 12:23 pm 16

that's a grand joke to anyone who knows any history.

Is it? America has had a trade policy that favors tariffs in the past. But it only looks like America does not favor free trade because of the very small window within which such policies are discussed. Once you leave the Classically Liberal US and look at the rest of the world, then America is very free trade indeed and always has been. Do foreign merchants need to be housed in special hostels for their own safety? Are foreign businessmen regularly killed by the locals without any consequences? Are they unable to access the courts and a reasonable degree of justice? Has America ever had a government monopoly on entire sectors of the economy?

These things are relative and relatively speaking the US has done well.

SMFS nails it here, +1

I think you meant:

"Trump is 'batting' 100% so far on ..."

Yes, he is batting 100% because credible deterrence works. Remember the Asian Boss interviews of youthful NK defectors in a previous MR post? Things have changed for Kim - there is a new Sherrif in town, and the left just can't stand it.

Really? I still remember when the Right was saying that, with the Appeaser-in-Chief Clinton gone, Bush was playing poker insted of chess and defeating North Korea. Outcome? North Korea got the Bomb. But I guess the Far-Right lunacy springs eternal.

Let’s be fair. ALL of the recent presidents/administrations have failed. It is more likely than not that Trump will fail too.

On the other hand, odious regimes do collapse, sometimes quickly. And someone has to take the credit.

I disagree that all US presidents have failed vis-a-vis North Korea; during the Clinton years the policy of not supplying aid to NK actually worked for a while, at a cost to the people of NK, to pressure Kim. Only later did the US cave in and supply aid in the late 90s in an attempt to buy loyalty, which did not work. Any aid to NK will be used by the leadership to buy things, like hard currency; Stalin did the same with the food from the Ukraine (sold it when Ukrainians were starving, for hard currency used to industrialize the USSR)

Fair enough. But... There are two goals, the idealist goal (improving the lot of North Koreans), and the realist goal (don’t let the leadership command nukes). Clinton—a crappy human being, and, by current progressive standards a right wing Dem—mostly failed to achieve either of those goals. At best he slowed the nuclear weapons program down, and at worst he was a sucker.

I am the real Centrist, because I blame neither Clinton nor Bush for things beyond their control.

Atomic bombs are not that complicated, and given time any sealed kingdom can create them. You know, unless you want to invade, and put Army Rangers on every street corner.

Maybe this ties back to the right wing fantasy that you can bluff in plain sight, and no one will ever figure it out, no one will ever ask to see your cards.

Bluff real good and you get everything you want? Except oops, we say it out loud.

Here is a dark take on what we are getting:

If it proves to be NK promises, without inspections, how many of you would put that in the win column, and why?

You could possibly make the liberal argument than an open, modernizing, NK must naturally liberalize .. but that isn't where you started. It is .. an Obama style "reset" with NK.

We will actually have to see what comes out of the NK meetings rather than accept Max Fisher's (NYT) interpretation of rumors.

But those tweets are typical of the liberal BS on Iran and NK. Uncritical praise for JCPOA inspection regime even though the scope, protocols and results of the inspections are secret ... assertions that US guarantees have no credibility b/c Trump won't assent to unilateral promises by Obama not approved by Congress or popular sentiment ... etc.

As opposed to end zone celebrations after a first down?

But this piece does raise some critical questions. If NK remains a regional nuclear power, after US drawdown, who exactly won there? And if NK remains nuclear, how hard is an ICBM when you already know how?

But to be clear about my definition in terms, if NK fully denuclearizes, with on site inspections, I will be fully impressed.

That will be a touchdown.

Who cares about sanctions?

Will Trump remove all US troops from Korea?

Denuclearization was the 90s term for the US removings it's nuclear umbrella over South Korea, meaning nukes targeting North Korea.

That never happened, so Korea now has nukes to prevent all US use of nukes in Korea.

Trump has pretty much set the course for Iran producing, or buying nukes from Korea in exchange for oil and other trade.

Trump may try to block trade, but go too far and strike directly at Iran, and Iran will probably shutdown all shipping in the Persian gulf, if for no other reason than to cut off US military supply lines creating another Afghan situation of uncertain and extremely costly supply lines.

But hey, Trump blames Iran for 911 just like Bush blamed Iraq for 911. Just listen to his speech announcing his rejecting the Iran deal.

Nuclear weapons are really useful things. But they can do nothing against sanctions. North Korea has decided that it prefers to feed its poorest people rather than continue to fire missiles over Japan. That is probably sensible. But let's see how far they are willing to go.

Iran does not have the extensive totalitarian state North Korea does. It does not keep a significant percentage of its population in slave labor camps. The rulers have already lost the support of the voters and everyone knows they cannot win a free and fair election. All they have now is the support of a significant number of thuggish working class men willing to inflict serious pain on anyone the Mullahs tell them to.

Let's see how long that lasts once sanctions begin to bite.

The sanctions probably aren't going to work. Iran doesn't need to buy anything from America if it can get everything it needs from Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Trump has a record of making big pronouncements which then fail on execution (see mission accomplished in syria, the muslim ban, the wall, coal jobs comeback, etc.). Heck, his "tax cuts" raised my taxes.

We shall see. He is already racking up impressive wins in Korea and he is not even trying. The Iranians may be able to get what they want from Europe. Or alternatively, US sanctions on European companies that do business with Iran may deter them from doing business with Iran. I expect Europe will complain but fall into line.

Not that anything can really help the Mullahs as the problem is their incompetence and corruption. Not sanctions.

As for the Muslim ban etc etc, the problem there is unconstitutional and unprecedented judicial over-reach that is preventing Trump from doing his job. Not Trump's fault that some judges want impeaching.

There is nothing to indicate Trump plans a conflict with either NK nor Iran.

Let us see if he can get Iran to the table - sanctions create problems for the mullahs. I don't expect a Hillobama/Libya type debacle from Trump.

Actually, just 'There is nothing to indicate Trump plans' is sufficient.

Let's keep in mind that North Korea has lots of experience with airplanes flying to Seoul:

Let's see if I can work in a mention of Lee Bum-suk (the Foreign Minister and not the Prime Minister of the same name). No. Don't think I can.

Okay, this is an economics blog, so it's expected that many if not most of the posts would be inspired by Nostradamus. Is it fear of the future or optimism about the future that causes humans to obsess about the future while rewriting the past?

Rocket Man is out of his mind.

But here is an idea ... we could give him what he wants and declare it as a win!

Trump isn’t a genius, just a businessman who knows how to incentivize good behavior and punish bad, whereas most politicians usually do the opposite.

Perhaps the greatest lesson of Trump’s presidency is how utterly appalling career politicians are at managing anything let alone an entire nation.

Cynthia Nixon, Kamala Harris, Sanders, Hilary, Obama, Trudeau, May, Corbyn and hundreds more. Not a photon of sense or experience among the lot and yet their stars burn bright in the political firmament.

True. It's not that Trump is a genius or even a smart man. It's that Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and the deep sate mandarins they fronted are "emperors with no clothes," have no real-world expertise, and the "smart kids" can't see it.

If this is true, then doesn't Trump's Iran deal breakup incentivize Iran to build nukes?

Solid point, Chip. It is rather remarkable that people have high expectations from politicians who really have no noteworthy accomplishments.

Let us be blunt: Red China and its totalitarian allies are buying time. Nothing but a full-scale nuclear attack against Japan, Red China and North Korea will stop the ongoing triumphal march of totalitarianism.

".... deep sate mandarins they fronted are "emperors with no clothes,"

What ??

You are forgetting brilliant diplomats like Warren Christopher & Madeline Albright & Hillary Clinton . Their frantic shuttle-diplomacy and photo-op luncheons brought peace to the Middle East and world at large.

And you would be hard pressed to name any government organization more efficient & productive than the US State Department. /s

Actually Trump's lack of a functioning state dept is what allowed the two Koreas (with a favorable South Korean regime) to talk without too much interference. Tillerson thought his dotard boss was an "idiot" so he gets canned, this after Tillerson fired a ton of staff. Turns out the US doesn't need to be micromanaging the world.

Tillerson was a hack.

It is sad how Americans can not even have a civilized discussion.

...Tillerson didn't fire anywhere near enough State Dept bureaucrats/slugs.

State Dept has 75,000 employees -- what the hel| do they do all day ??

State Dept staff and budget should be cut 80% now. It's really a worthless anachronism in this 21st Century and should be totally abolished.

But the North Koreans have free health care!

Is noodle soup, like revenge, a dish best served cold?

Comments for this post are closed