Whether Second Hand of DPRK-U.S. Confrontation Stops or Not Depends on U.S. Act: KCNA Commentary
Pyongyang, July 23 (KCNA) -- The U.S. is running high fever in its move to expand the overall structure of confrontation against the DPRK.
According to the data released on July 21, more than ten FA-18 Super Hornets belonging to an attack squadron of the U.S. marines, named Fighting Bengals, were recently deployed in the Suwon Air Force Base in Kyonggi Province of the ROK.
The U.S. Defense Department said that it is aimed at providing the experience in operation in the Indo-Pacific region, adding that these fighters are training to increase their preparedness and the power of fatal blow with its ally.
And as if threatening someone, it opened to the public the several FA-18 Super Hornets taking off.
It is said that these fighters will stay in the ROK in and after August for different joint exercises.
It is known to the world that FA-18 Super Hornet is the one for special warfare which has its mission to hit the major bases and the "war command" of the other party with JDAM and other precision guided bombs in the way of "high-density strike".
The ROK military side, encouraged by the bluffing of its master, said that "as the powerful air forces of the U.S. marines are permanently deployed in fact, the effect of increasing the deterrence against the north is also expected".
This being a hard reality, a few days ago, the U.S. made a spokesperson for the Department of State, the U.S. ambassador to the ROK and others let loose a spate of rhetoric about dialogue, saying that the U.S. policy toward the DPRK including dialogue remains unchanged and the door of negotiations with the DPRK is still opened.
The confrontation maniacs, suffering from the endemic like the "hostility toward the DPRK", are talking about honeyed dialogue. This is prompted by the ulterior intention to easily realize their ambition for stifling the DPRK by leading it to mental and psychological slackness.
Dialogue with sinister attempt and such dialogue as an extension of confrontation are needless to be held from the outset.
Through the decades-long relations with the U.S., the DPRK has keenly and fully felt what the dialogue brought to it and what it lost.
Watching the whole course of the DPRK-U.S. dialogue, the fair international community has already come to a conclusion that the U.S. is a perfidious country which does not fulfill its promises, saying this or that.
The DPRK-U.S. Agreed Framework was adopted as a result of the DPRK-U.S. dialogue during the Clinton administration, but the U.S. had put the brake on its implementation under this or that pretext and completely scrapped it while entering the Bush administration. This is a typical example.
It admits of no argument about the reliability as regards the political climate of the U.S. which "cooks" at random the inter-state agreement solemnly declared before the world in conformity with the "taste" and "feeling" of the political faction in power whenever the government is replaced and throws away it like "waste".
All facts go to prove that the U.S. is a "backward country and rogue state in politics" which makes no scruple of turning over the inter-state treaty and agreement in a moment.
Amid the full-dress presidential election race in the U.S., Trump, who has been officially confirmed as a candidate for the Republican Party, said in his speech of acceptance for candidate that "I got along with them and it is nice to get along with someone who has a lot of nuclear weapons and otherwise", thus buoying a lingering desire for the prospects of the DPRK-U.S. relations. Even if any administration takes office in the U.S., the political climate, which is confused by the infighting of the two parties, does not change and, accordingly, we do not care about this.
It is true that Trump, when he was president, tried to reflect the special personal relations between the heads of states in the relations between states, but he did not bring about any substantial positive change.
He that puts on a public gown must put off a private person. The foreign policy of a state and personal feelings must be strictly distinguished.
For nearly 80 years since the founding of the DPRK, the U.S. has pursued the most vicious and persistent hostile policy toward it.
The DPRK has bolstered up its self-defensive capabilities to safeguard its ideology, social system, dignity and life and is fully ready for all-out confrontation with the U.S.
Due to the serious strategic mistakes of the successive administrations, the era has come when the U.S. should really worry about its security.
No matter what rhetoric like dialogue and negotiations it may let loose while frequently staging frantic war rehearsals for aggression foreseeing the nuclear operation by dispatching nuclear strategic assets regardless of the time and reinforcing the ultra-modern weapons and equipment, can we believe it?
The U.S. had better make a proper choice in the matter of how to deal with the DPRK in the future, while sincerely agonizing the gains and losses in the DPRK-U.S. confrontation.
Whether the second hand of the DPRK-U.S. confrontation stops or not entirely depends on the U.S. act. -0-
www.kcna.kp (Juche113.7.23.)
Even the hexbear emotes provide us with photographic evidence that Hasan is not like the others. They collaborate with each other but Hasan has no relation to them.
Destiny has been making up lies and drama about Hasan since 2019.
Hasan attended the DNC as a news reporter, not as a supporter of the Democratic Party. Left leaning news outlets such as Democracy Now (Amy Goodman) and Drop Site News (Ryan Grim and Jeremy Scahill) were also at the DNC. Even right wing outlets like Fox News and Newsmax were at the DNC. Even cranks like Charlie Kirk and Mike Lindell were allowed into the DNC.
Hasan also interviewed the representatives of the Uncommitted Movement outside of the DNC on the same day as being kicked out and marched with the Pro-Palestinian protests 2 days before.
He was critical of Kamala the entire 3 days that he was at the DNC. There were many people who asked him if he would support Kamala and he told them that he was waiting for her to show a change in the US policy towards Israel/Gaza before he was willing to show any support for her campaign. I think he might have told people to support Kamala if she had stopped weapon shipments to Israel and forced Israel to do an actual ceasefire. He also has said that he wanted her to have a different border policy than Biden. Kamala's border policy is very bad.
Hasan was being interviewed by a journalist from the New York Times when he was kicked out. The DNC had given him a private room to stream. Around this same time, Hasan tweeted that the DNC was doing hasbara. Some person walked in and said they were revoking his access to the room and they did not offer him any other similar space to stream. He canceled the interview with Shawn Fain of the UAW and went back to his hotel room.
At his hotel room, after being kicked out from the DNC, he reacted to Kamala's speech and said that he now believes there is no chance Kamala will change her policy towards Israel/Gaza. A few reasons cited were that the DNC did not allow any Palestinians to speak, Kamala said she wanted America to have the most lethal military in the world in her speech, and because they kicked him out for criticizing Israel.