There are 5 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Al Kennedy Inactive
    Al Kennedy
    @AlKennedy

    The discussion on the Korean situation was particularly uniformed.  Michael Brendan Dougherty’s opinion was especially devoid of the history and facts on the ground.  Perhaps inviting an expert such as Gordon Chang would have improved the discussion.  Expecting the same collection of people to have an intelligent, informed opinion on every possible topic doesn’t seem realistic. National Review hires intelligent people who write extremely well.  This collection of commentators with the exception of Ian Tuttle continues to disappoint me with their discussion on these podcasts.

    • #1
  2. Leslie Watkins Inactive
    Leslie Watkins
    @LeslieWatkins

    I really enjoy these podcasts. Charles’s criticism of the vagueness of Trump’s use of the word “threaten” in contrast to Clinton’s much clearer—and therefore understandable— use of “attack” is right on (I wouldn’t be surprised, in fact, if Trump was ad libbing at that point). I would, though, take mild exception to Michael’s point that Kim should already know what the U.S. can do to North Korea, making Trump’s rhetoric reckless and unnecessary. True. But there’s a big difference between knowing something could happen and fearing it is quite possible. Kim’s state of mind does make the use of harsh rhetoric quite scary, but decades of rhetorical placation seem to have made him more, not less, dangerous to others.

    • #2
  3. Al Kennedy Inactive
    Al Kennedy
    @AlKennedy

    @lesliewatkins I too also enjoy much of what Charles  C. W. Cooke writes.  He also gets the automatic  +10-15 IQ points that any American gives someone with a British accent.  But the discussion on this podcast of the current Korea situation ignored mentioning China’s primary strategic objective of eliminating the US from the Pacific Ocean as a power.  China wants to replace the US as the primary power in the Pacific.  Their support of this objective explains their support of the North Korea regime and their ignoring of American pressure.  The fact that no one mentioned this or discussed this on the podcast led me to conclude that the participants had no clue as to what is at stake.  I live in Japan, and I am convinced this a China-US problem, not a North Korea-US problem.

    • #3
  4. Leslie Watkins Inactive
    Leslie Watkins
    @LeslieWatkins

    Al Kennedy (View Comment):
    @lesliewatkins I too also enjoy much of what Charles C. W. Cooke writes. He also gets the automatic +10-15 IQ points that any American gives someone with a British accent. But the discussion on this podcast of the current Korea situation ignored mentioning China’s primary strategic objective of eliminating the US from the Pacific Ocean as a power. China wants to replace the US as the primary power in the Pacific. Their support of this objective explains their support of the North Korea regime and their ignoring of American pressure. The fact that no one mentioned this or discussed this on the podcast led me to conclude that the participants had no clue as to what is at stake. I live in Japan, and I am convinced this a China-US problem, not a North Korea-US problem.

    You might enjoy listening to the John Batchelor Show (from NYC but available in podcast form on the show’s web page), as many of his guest experts on Asia would agree with your assessment. (I wouldn’t doubt that “the editors” might also, even if they did not make a point of saying so.) I personally like hearing all kinds of POVs on subjects, but I can see why, living in Japan, the hows and whys are of special importance to you.

    • #4
  5. Al Kennedy Inactive
    Al Kennedy
    @AlKennedy

    Leslie Watkins (View Comment):

    Al Kennedy (View Comment):
    @lesliewatkins I too also enjoy much of what Charles C. W. Cooke writes. He also gets the automatic +10-15 IQ points that any American gives someone with a British accent. But the discussion on this podcast of the current Korea situation ignored mentioning China’s primary strategic objective of eliminating the US from the Pacific Ocean as a power. China wants to replace the US as the primary power in the Pacific. Their support of this objective explains their support of the North Korea regime and their ignoring of American pressure. The fact that no one mentioned this or discussed this on the podcast led me to conclude that the participants had no clue as to what is at stake. I live in Japan, and I am convinced this a China-US problem, not a North Korea-US problem.

    You might enjoy listening to the John Batchelor Show (from NYC but available in podcast form on the show’s web page), as many of his guest experts on Asia would agree with your assessment. (I wouldn’t doubt that “the editors” might also, even if they did not make a point of saying so.) I personally like hearing all kinds of POVs on subjects, but I can see why, living in Japan, the hows and whys are of special importance to you.

    Thanks very much for the tip @lesliewatkins.  I’ll download a podcast.

    • #5