Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 345 ... LastLast
Results 106 to 140 of 247

Thread: How to deal with North Korea

  1. #106
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Waynesboro, GA. USA
    Posts
    29

    Default Re: How to deal with North Korea

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    You cannot be serious!

    Go and read some recent history books.
    You mean some liberal revisionist history books? No thanks, I'll stick with the truth.

  2. #107
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Waynesboro, GA. USA
    Posts
    29

    Default Re: How to deal with North Korea

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterSibley View Post
    MacArthur wanted to totally destroy North Korea and China, not just kill their leaders. The man was insane.
    In 1951 the US did not have the capability to totally destroy China. We had already driven the North Korean armies from the field.

  3. #108
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Northern NSW Australia
    Posts
    63,230

    Default Re: How to deal with North Korea

    Quote Originally Posted by Seabeau View Post
    You mean some liberal revisionist history books? No thanks, I'll stick with the truth.

    '' You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know. ''
    Grateful Dead

  4. #109
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    9,064

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chas View Post
    "Really Rum_pirate, you are comparing NK political prison camps to US criminal prisons? "

    You are arguing that the American prison system has nothing to do with politics? You go ahead, I'll read, and try to figure out what you are saying; wish me luck, I'm a little slow! / Jim
    I never said that. I said comparing NK's political prison camps system, with the US criminal prison system is absurd. You seem to think not.
    I am becoming more and more convinced most libs in this forum are certifiably mad.

    Sent from my BLN-L24 using Tapatalk

  5. #110
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Waynesboro, GA. USA
    Posts
    29

    Default Re: How to deal with North Korea

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterSibley View Post
    Very funny! However the facts are that we dropped two nuclear devices on Japan and subsequently the war ended.

  6. #111
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Sweden,Scilly Isles, Siberia
    Posts
    7,799

    Default Re: How to deal with North Korea

    Quote Originally Posted by Seabeau View Post
    Very funny! However the facts are that we dropped two nuclear devices on Japan and subsequently the war ended.
    I think ya trolling. Just to be pedantic, those were Atomic bombs, and one was enough, the fact a second was used shows exactly the lack of humanity.....but good for science eh?

  7. #112
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    46,069

    Default Re: How to deal with North Korea

    Quote Originally Posted by peb View Post
    I never said that. I said comparing NK's political prison camps system, with the US criminal prison system is absurd. You seem to think not.
    I am becoming more and more convinced most libs in this forum are certifiably mad.
    In this thread, there seems to be plenty of madness to go around, way more than one would expect. On one side we have folks apparently seriously likening the US (which without a doubt has plenty of faults) to North Korea, fer chrissake, probably the worst place to live on the entire planet, a country which is very much like a giant prison camp for everybody, not just those officially in prison. On the other, we have folks apparently convinced that despite all evidence, the application of suficient military force could easily make it all better. Both barking mad.

    Re Nagasaki - 'the second bomb wasn't necessary' is the conventional wisdom today, but it's 20-20 hindsight, not at all obvious to people at the time. As horrible as they were, the atomic bombs did less damage than conventional bombing had already done to several Japanese cities; more civilians were killed in the firebombing of Tokyo and Osaka in March '45 than by both atomic bombs combined. 'Lack of humanity' is the definition of war.
    Last edited by Keith Wilson; 08-10-2017 at 07:30 AM.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  8. #113
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pa.
    Posts
    3,296

    Default Re: How to deal with North Korea

    And because the two capitals are so close to each other, he can't nuke Seoul, the fallout would make his own capital uninhabitable.
    If he ever drinks the brew of 10 tanna leaves, he will become a monster the likes of which the world has never seen



  9. #114
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Waynesboro, GA. USA
    Posts
    29

    Default Re: How to deal with North Korea

    Quote Originally Posted by skaraborgcraft View Post
    I think ya trolling. Just to be pedantic, those were Atomic bombs, and one was enough, the fact a second was used shows exactly the lack of humanity.....but good for science eh?
    One didn't drive the Japanese into surrender. The second did. The Japanese reaped the whirlwind they started. Lack of humanity? What a farce. Ask any Chinese survivor of the "Rape of Nanking" about Japanese humanity.

  10. #115
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    34,661

    Default Re: How to deal with North Korea

    Quote Originally Posted by Seabeau View Post
    Wiping out their leadership can hardly be considered "nuc them all". We would not be having this issue with the North it we had done exactly that.. It worked quite well on the Japanese.
    Quote Originally Posted by Seabeau View Post
    Very funny! However the facts are that we dropped two nuclear devices on Japan and subsequently the war ended.
    Which did not wipe out their leadership. At all. Whatsoever.

    Remarkable!
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  11. #116
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pa.
    Posts
    3,296

    Default Re: How to deal with North Korea

    I think we should drop all manner of shiny consumer goods on the country - rain consumerism down on them (including thousands of South Korean Kias and Hyundias). Maybe sub the whole op out to Amazon. I'd throw in a whole lot of free Pizzas too, maybe stuffed crust and with real bacon toppings. Let them experience what they could have if they joined the Capitalists in our pursuit of excess, they will rise up en masse.
    If he ever drinks the brew of 10 tanna leaves, he will become a monster the likes of which the world has never seen



  12. #117
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Caribbean cliff edge
    Posts
    14,643

    Default Re: How to deal with North Korea

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    Oh, for the love of God! That's false equivalence on a truly monumental scale. Yes, the US does dreadful things sometimes, but North Korea can reasonably described as the world's largest prison camp.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rum_Pirate View Post
    Keith do be careful with the descriptions.

    On average that would be 700/100k.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...#United_States
    Quote Originally Posted by peb View Post
    Really Rum_pirate, you are comparing NK political prison camps to US criminal prisons?

    Sent from my BLN-L24 using Tapatalk
    No Pep I am not comparing "NK political prison camps to US criminal prisons".

    I did suggest in (Post #85) in response to Keith's post (Post#84) that Keith 'be careful with the descriptions' and showed/referred to the incarceration rates (from Wiki) for both countries, which are similar.

    You are the one that has referred to "NK political prison camps", not me.

    Interestingly if the 'political prisoners' in NK are included in those incarceration figures and the total is adjusted by excluded them from the total, then NK would have a much lower incarceration rate than the USA.

    Please be guided accordingly.
    Enjoy a good rum on the rocks at sunset.

  13. #118
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    46,069

    Default Re: How to deal with North Korea

    My point was the the entire country of North Korea could be likened to a giant prison camp. It is not necessary to defend the North Korean government, which is indeed about as bad as they get, to think that Mr Trump is being a damned fool.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  14. #119
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Waynesboro, GA. USA
    Posts
    29

    Default Re: How to deal with North Korea

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    Which did not wipe out their leadership. At all. Whatsoever.

    Remarkable!
    Two difference issues. Remarkable certainly. The Nucs did the job. We won. The war ended badly for our enemies.

  15. #120
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Caribbean cliff edge
    Posts
    14,643

    Default Re: How to deal with North Korea

    Interesting with 20/20 hindsight. This article is 4 years old

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...nuclear-threat
    • View more sharing options




    North Korea must end its 'belligerent approach', says Obama


    Pentagon plays down intelligence report that regime might have a nuclear missile but says it is prepared for worst


    This article is 4 years old


    Ewen MacAskill in Washington and Justin McCurry in Tokyo
    Friday 12 April 2013 08.25 BSTFirst published on Friday 12 April 2013 08.25 BST





    Play VideoPlayCurrent Time 0:00

    /

    Duration Time1:00

    Loaded: 0%

    Progress: 0%


    FullscreenMute

    Barack Obama has called on North Korea to end what he described as its "belligerent approach" as US intelligence officials concluded for the first time that the country has a nuclear weapon small enough to be carried on a missile.
    The US president made his first public comments on the crisis as a congressional hearing was told of the Pentagon's latest intelligence assessment on North Korea. The Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) report said it concluded "with moderate confidence that the North currently has nuclear weapons capable of delivery by ballistic missiles". But it said the missiles would not be reliable.
    The Pentagon later sought to row back from the DIA assessment read out in Congress, saying that North Korea's had not yet fully tested a nuclear weapon.
    US military commanders have been preparing for North Korea to launch a missile after a new round of United Nations sanctions were imposed last month.
    The US has threatened to shoot down any North Korean missiles but it might only do so if the missile appears to be targeted at a US territory or one of its allies such as South Korea or Japan. If the missile is headed out to sea the US might try to avoid further escalation by letting it take its course.
    Pentagon spokesman George Little refused to say what the US response would be. "We are prepared to respond to any missile threat," he said.
    Little later issued a statement saying: "In today's House armed services committee hearing on the department of defence budget, a member of the committee read an unclassified passage in a classified report on North Korea's nuclear capabilities.
    "While I cannot speak to all the details of a report that is classified in its entirety, it would be inaccurate to suggest that the North Korean regime has fully tested, developed or demonstrated the kinds of nuclear capabilities referenced in the passage. The United States continues to closely monitor the North Korean nuclear programme and calls upon North Korea to honour its international obligations."
    South Korea's defence ministry also cast doubt on the finding that North Korea could make a nuclear warhead small enough to go on a missile. "Our military's assessment is that the North has not yet miniaturised," ministry spokesman Kim Min-seok said in Seoul on Friday morning.
    "North Korea has conducted three nuclear tests but there is doubt whether it is at the stage where they can reduce the weight and miniaturise to mount on a missile."
    Obama, speaking to reporters after he met UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon at the White House, said: "We both agreed that now's the time for North Korea to end the kind of belligerent approach that they've been taking and to try to lower temperatures.
    "Nobody wants to see a conflict on the Korean peninsula. But it's important for North Korea, like every other country in the world, to observe the basic rules and norms that are set forth, including a wide variety of UN resolutions."
    He added that the US would take all necessary steps to protect its people.
    The Obama administration remains of the view that North Korea's actions and rhetoric over the last month are bluster and that there is no serious threat yet.
    The DIA assessment was revealed by Congressman Doug Lamborn during a congressional hearing. He said the part of the assessment dealing with North Korea had been declassified.
    Lamborn, reading from the report, which was produced last month, said: "DIA assesses with moderate confidence the North currently has nuclear weapons capable of delivery by ballistic missiles. However, the reliability will be low."
    The revelation came after a Pentagon briefing at which the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Martin Dempsey, refused to say whether North Korea was capable of building a nuclear weapon that could fit on a missile, arguing that the information was classified.
    Administration officials know there is much more public scepticism about such intelligence claims after assessments about Iraq's weapons capabilities proved so wrong.
    The revelation at this juncture will be viewed with suspicion by some anti-war groups who will wonder if, as with Iraq, it is part of a process to demonise North Korea ahead of military action.
    But there appear to be no senior figures inside the Obama administration pressing for military intervention in North Korea to bring about regime change. The policy at present remains "strategic patience", with officials content to settle for containment.
    The US secretary of state, John Kerry, is heading to the region on Thursday for talks with South Korea, Japan and China.
    Earlier, in Washington, Mark Fitzpatrick, a director of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, argued that while "strategic patience" was an answer for the present "artificial" crisis, in the long term the aim should be regime change and the reunification of North and South Korea.
    He did not anticipate North Korea willingly trading away "big bang" weapons – the only significant achievement of which it could boast.
    Fitzpatrick argued in favour of broadcasting direct to people in North Korea, targeting the finances of the ruling elite and highlighting its human rights record.




    "The answer to the question: is regime change the answer? Yes," Fitzpatrick said. "But it is not obviously an immediate answer to the current situation. North Korea's actions and statement, however, reinforce the conclusion that there is only one happy ending to this long-running tragedy: unification of the Korea as a democratic, free-enterprise based republic."
    The video here is also interesting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJ95kuNKD2g
    Enjoy a good rum on the rocks at sunset.

  16. #121
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    46,069

    Default Re: How to deal with North Korea

    Once can make a pretty good case that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, followed by the immediate end of the war, resulted in many fewer Japanese deaths than an invasion would have. Whether the second bomb was necessary is something that historians can argue about endlessly, but people at the time could not have known.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  17. #122
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    34,661

    Default Re: How to deal with North Korea

    Quote Originally Posted by Seabeau View Post
    Two difference issues. Remarkable certainly. The Nucs did the job. We won. The war ended badly for our enemies.
    Did you read, and understand the words in the OP linked article?
    The brightest hope of prevention is that it could be executed so swiftly and decisively that North Korea would not have time to respond. This is a fantasy.
    An American first strike would likely trigger one of the worst mass killings in human history.
    “When you’re discussing nuclear issues and the potential of a nuclear attack, even a 1 percent chance of failure has potentially catastrophically high costs,” Abe Denmark, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for East Asia under Barack Obama, told me in May. “You could get people who will give you General Buck Turgidson’s line from Dr. Strangelove,” he said, referring to the character played by George C. Scott in Stanley Kubrick’s classic film, who glibly acknowledges the millions of lives likely to be lost in a nuclear exchange by telling the president, “I’m not saying we wouldn’t get our hair mussed.”
    Kim’s arsenal is a tough target. “It’s not possible that you get 100 percent of it with high confidence, for a couple of reasons,” Michèle Flournoy, a former undersecretary of defense in the Obama administration and currently the CEO of the Center for a New American Security, told me when we spoke this spring. “One reason is, I don’t believe anybody has perfect intelligence about where all the nuclear weapons are. Two, I think there is an expectation that, when they do ultimately deploy nuclear weapons, they will likely put them on mobile systems, which are harder to find, track, and target. Some may also be in hardened shelters or deep underground. So it’s a difficult target set—not something that could be destroyed in a single bolt-from-the-blue attack.”
    North Korea is a forbidding, mountainous place, its terrain perfect for hiding and securing things. Ever since 1953, the country’s security and the survival of the Kim dynasty have relied on military stalemate. Resisting the American threat—surviving a first strike with the ability to respond—has been a cornerstone of the country’s military strategy for three generations.
    And with only a few of its worst weapons, North Korea could, probably within hours, kill millions. This means an American first strike would likely trigger one of the worst mass killings in human history. In 2005, Sam Gardiner, a retired U.S. Air Force colonel who specialized in conducting war games at the National War College, estimated that the use of sarin gas alone would produce 1 million casualties. Gardiner now says, in light of what we have learned from gas attacks on civilians in Syria, that the number would likely be three to five times greater. And today North Korea has an even wider array of chemical and biological weapons than it did 12 years ago—the recent assassination of Kim’s half brother, Kim Jong Nam, demonstrated the potency of at least one compound, the nerve agent VX. The Kim regime is believed to have biological weapons including anthrax, botulism, hemorrhagic fever, plague, smallpox, typhoid, and yellow fever. And it has missiles capable of reaching Tokyo, a metropolitan area of nearly 38 million. In other words, any effort to crush North Korea flirts not just with heavy losses, but with one of the greatest catastrophes in human history.
    force his hand with a first strike, to do so without severe provocation or an immediate and dire threat, would be not only foolhardy but morally indefensible. That this decision now rests with Donald Trump, who has not shown abundant capacity for moral judgment, is not reassuring.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  18. #123
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Posts
    7,966

    Default Re: How to deal with North Korea

    "In other words, any effort to crush North Korea flirts not just with heavy losses, but with one of the greatest catastrophes in human history."

    This needs to sink into a few skulls.

    N. Korea has 8000 hardened artillery sites. Even if the US was to use nukes, it would takes days to eliminate all of them.
    Nosce te ipsum

  19. #124
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Caribbean cliff edge
    Posts
    14,643

    Default Re: How to deal with North Korea

    Quote Originally Posted by Old Dryfoot View Post
    "In other words, any effort to crush North Korea flirts not just with heavy losses, but with one of the greatest catastrophes in human history."

    This needs to sink into a few skulls.

    N. Korea has 8000 hardened artillery sites. Even if the US was to use nukes, it would takes days to eliminate all of them.

    What about an incisive operation to cut off the proverbial snake's head?
    Enjoy a good rum on the rocks at sunset.

  20. #125
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Pleasant Valley NS Canada
    Posts
    10,736

    Default Re: How to deal with North Korea

    Would an incisive operation to eliminate the US President bring the US military to an immediate and utter incapacity to retaliate? Why would NK be any different?
    Hope for the best, but plan for the worst.

  21. #126
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    9,064

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rum_Pirate View Post
    No Pep I am not comparing "NK political prison camps to US criminal prisons".

    I did suggest in (Post #85) in response to Keith's post (Post#84) that Keith 'be careful with the descriptions' and showed/referred to the incarceration rates (from Wiki) for both countries, which are similar.

    You are the one that has referred to "NK political prison camps", not me.

    Interestingly if the 'political prisoners' in NK are included in those incarceration figures and the total is adjusted by excluded them from the total, then NK would have a much lower incarceration rate than the USA.

    Please be guided accordingly.
    Please take the time to read the wiki article you linked, it is mainly about nk political prisoners. So you brought it up, not me. And hence you were certainly comparing the two.

    Sent from my BLN-L24 using Tapatalk

  22. #127
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    34,661

    Default Re: How to deal with North Korea

    Quote Originally Posted by Rum_Pirate View Post
    What about an incisive operation to cut off the proverbial snake's head?
    Another one who has not read the link in the OP.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  23. #128
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Posts
    4,725

    Default Re: How to deal with North Korea

    Quote Originally Posted by mmd View Post
    Would an incisive operation to eliminate the US President bring the US military to an immediate and utter incapacity to retaliate? Why would NK be any different?
    IIRC something similar was tried at the beginning of the Iraq war in 2003.

    http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...sprj.irq.main/

    How'd that work out?
    Will

  24. #129
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Pleasant Valley NS Canada
    Posts
    10,736

    Default Re: How to deal with North Korea

    Excellent point, Will. Everybody benefitted from the immediate cessation of hostilities there.
    Hope for the best, but plan for the worst.

  25. #130
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    46,069

    Default Re: How to deal with North Korea

    From the New Republic:

    This Is Not a North Korean Crisis. It’s a Trump Crisis.
    The standoff on the Korean Peninsula is tense, but stable—unless the American president disrupts it.
    By Jeet Heer August 10, 2017

    In a normal world, every politician in Washington would be alarmed if the U.S. president threatened to use nuclear weapons to destroy another nation, as President Donald Trump did on Tuesday. “North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States,” he said during a photo op at his Trump National Golf Club in New Jersey. “They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen.” To someone who had just awoken from a years-long coma, his remarks would have suggested that the world was on the brink of nuclear war. Indeed, historians in search of a rhetorical precedent had to go all the way back to President Harry Truman’s 1945 announcement of the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima.

    But everyone in Washington is all too familiar now with Trump’s flatulent mouth. Thus, most powerful figures, including members of Trump’s own party and administration, discounted his words as mere hyperbole. “Don’t read too much into it,” a White House source told Politico reporter Josh Dawsey. Senator John McCain criticized Trump’s words, but added, “I don’t pay much attention anymore to what the president says because there’s no point in it. It’s not terrible what he said, but it’s kind of the classic Trump in that he overstates things.” The unanswered question is whether this habit of overstating things is not itself a massive problem.

    The dilemma here is composed of two separate problems. One is the stalemate on the Korean Peninsula, which dates to the end of war there in 1953, but is now made more tense by North Korea’s increasing nuclear capabilities. The other is Trump himself, an uninformed and undisciplined oaf who likes to shoot from the hip. The first problem, the Korean standoff, is worrisome but also fundamentally stable; a solution is preferable, but not urgent. The second problem, the current American president, could trigger an actual war—and though the solution is urgent, no obvious one exists.

    There’s a reason why the stand-off on the Korean Peninsula has lasted for nearly seven decades. It’s like the Cold War in miniature, where the furious rhetoric between opposing parties belies their fundamental commitment to the status quo. North and South Korea claim they want unification, but to judge by their actions over many decades, they think any shift from their uneasy peace would cause more trouble than it’s worth. The communist elites in North Korea have enough trouble maintaining power without an expanded territory, and the costs and complications of unification is one of the most divisive issues in South Korean politics. The impasse also works in the interests of outside powers. For China, an armed North Korea is a way to keep regional rivals South Korea and Japan, as well as the U.S., on their toes. For America, the threat of North Korea is the cement holding together its alliance in the region.

    By this reading, dictator Kim Jong-un and the rest of the Korean elite are fundamentally rational, albeit cruel. They’re committed to maintaining absolute power, but not suicidal. They use nuclear brinksmanship to maintain their grip on society, the fear of outside attack helping to fuel nationalism and suppress dissent. As with the Cold War, the main danger is that the nations blunder into nuclear war through miscommunication, where one party misinterprets ritualistic brinksmanship as a genuine threat. This almost happened on several occasions in the Cold War, notably in the Cuban Missile Crisis.
    Enter Trump. There is a massive discrepancy between the actual policies of the U.S. government, generally a continuation of President Barack Obama’s approach of containment, and Trump’s bellicose words. In a series of tweets, New York Times reporter Max Fisher laid out the case that America’s actions are more important than Trump’s words, giving five reasons that “I wouldn’t worry too much.”

    Reason #1: the US has been issuing empty & vague threats against North Korea for 15+ years. Not clear upgrading the adjectives changes much. The second reason, he wrote, is that in international relations, “actions speak eleventy billion times louder than words. And US actions right now scream continuity and status quo. The U.S., in its lack of actions, is telling North Korea very clearly that it should ignore Trump’s words as largely meaningless.” Third, “No side benefits from escalation to conflict.” Fourth, “States are biased toward assuming other states will maintain status quo approach.” And last, “If we can’t even agree what Trump meant, North Koreans sure won’t know. So they’ll simply disregard it.”

    Fisher’s argument is plausible so long as the North Korean elite interprets Trump the way Washington does: as a bullsh!t artist prone to blunder. But is that something North Koreans are likely to do? Is it even wise on their part to do so?

    Nuclear deterrence theory is predicated on a world governed by rational actors. In the standoff with North Korea, Trump is a destabilizing force because there is no reason to believe he is rational. Aside from his well-documented ignorance and history of erratic behavior, there’s the added complication of his presidency being under siege by the investigation into Russian collusion with his presidential campaign. As Jonathan Chait recently argued in New York magazine, war would provide Trump with a much-needed diversion from scandal: “Trump could regain public standing through the rally-round-the-flag effect that usually occurs following a domestic attack or at the outset of a war.” Veteran reporter Elizabeth Drew noted Wednesday on Twitter that during the Watergate scandal, President Richard Nixon twice put the American military on high alert. But Nixon, though a madman in his own right, was much more assured in foreign policy than Trump is.

    The Western press is calling this “the North Korean crisis.” That’s not really accurate. There exists a longstanding deadlock with North Korea, one which a normal, rational U.S. president would be able to manage with firmness. But America doesn’t have a normal, rational president. The real crisis is not on a distant peninsula in Asia; it’s on a golf course somewhere in New Jersey.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  26. #131
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Waynesboro, GA. USA
    Posts
    29

    Default Re: How to deal with North Korea

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    Did you read, and understand the words in the OP linked article?
    This just illuminates another abject failure of the Obama Administration. All the more reasons to wait until a steady west wind and then destroy the North Korean war making potential in its entirety.

  27. #132
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Posts
    7,966

    Default Re: How to deal with North Korea

    You are a moron.
    Nosce te ipsum

  28. #133
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Winnipeg MB
    Posts
    15,018

    Default Re: How to deal with North Korea

    Quote Originally Posted by Seabeau View Post
    This just illuminates another abject failure of the Obama Administration. All the more reasons to wait until a steady west wind and then destroy the North Korean war making potential in its entirety.
    Delusional and exceptionally dangerous. You should run for POSOTUS.

    What are you doing about it?




  29. #134
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Waynesboro, GA. USA
    Posts
    29

    Default Re: How to deal with North Korea

    [QUOTE=Old Dryfoot;5310791]You are a moron.[/QUOTE
    . Liberals will always resort to personal insults when all else fails. Grow up.

  30. #135
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Fredericton, New Brunswick
    Posts
    31,546

    Default Re: How to deal with North Korea

    [QUOTE=Seabeau;5310810]
    Quote Originally Posted by Old Dryfoot View Post
    You are a moron.[/QUOTE
    . Liberals will always resort to personal insults when all else fails. Grow up.
    What do you think is a really apt response to someone whose words show them to be entirely unconcerned with the lives of the 9.8M residents of Seoul, let alone of the other 40M or so South Koreans, or the 25M or so North Koreans? Or of the impact of radioactive fallout on citizens in nearby places like China, Japan, etc.?
    If I use the word "God," I sure don't mean an old man in the sky who just loves the occasional goat sacrifice. - Anne Lamott

  31. #136
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Pleasant Valley NS Canada
    Posts
    10,736

    Default Re: How to deal with North Korea

    ^ "You are obviously a Republican"?
    Hope for the best, but plan for the worst.

  32. #137
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    34,661

    Default Re: How to deal with North Korea

    Quote Originally Posted by Old Dryfoot View Post
    You are a moron.
    No, not mentally impaired in that way.
    Amoral, possibly a psychopath who doesn’t have any conscience.
    Either that or a despicable troll.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  33. #138
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    central, FL
    Posts
    13,641

    Default Re: How to deal with North Korea

    Quote Originally Posted by Old Dryfoot View Post
    You are a moron.
    You sir, are being RUDE.......
    Quote Originally Posted by George Jung View Post
    Don't under-estimate Jack. He's purty damned talented

  34. #139
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    9,064

    Default

    Keith, so Trump is not rational, but Km is fundamentally rational?

    Sent from my BLN-L24 using Tapatalk

  35. #140
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    25,301

    Default Re: How to deal with North Korea

    Quote Originally Posted by Rigadog View Post
    I think we should drop all manner of shiny consumer goods on the country - rain consumerism down on them (including thousands of South Korean Kias and Hyundias). Maybe sub the whole op out to Amazon. I'd throw in a whole lot of free Pizzas too, maybe stuffed crust and with real bacon toppings. Let them experience what they could have if they joined the Capitalists in our pursuit of excess, they will rise up en masse.
    Central Command is all over this one. The only thing standing in the way is the donald's hatred for Jeff Bezos (CEO of Amazon.com) and his control of the Washington Post.
    "Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." - Alice

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •