Trump says US is ready to act alone on North Korea

sanman said:

You might as well have cited the distance between the Earth and Moon among your "facts" - my point is that you're ignoring the clear and present danger of Nork nukes against the United States. I don't care how much that fat clown frets for the future of his family throne - the rest of us don't revolve around him, we have our own lives to live. The fat clown has not been able to devise a mode of existence for himself that will allow him to coexist with us - either we get rid of him, or the fat clown will make our existence miserable, holding his nuclear knife to our throats.

You saying that "the problem isn't easily solvable" doesn't change the fact that it's going to get worse and worse, so the sooner the fat clown regime is removed, the better. If that means the US and its allies have to act unilaterally, then so be it. Furthermore, if South Korea goes "Sunshine" under some Lefty govt in the near future, and tries to undermine the US position against Pyongyang, then the US will have to lay down the law to Seoul, and tell them they'll have to fend for themselves if they don't know how to be a team player.

Click to expand...

Easy for you to say when it's not your homes and cities that get destroyed by the reckless actions you propose.

sanman said:

President Trump says the United States is prepared to act alone against North Korea, if China doesn't help stop North Korea's nuclear program:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...b1812e-17e4-11e7-8598-9a99da559f9e_story.html





The US should be prepared to curbstomp North Korea, first evacuating much of Seoul if necessary. Doing this will make an example out of a leading pariah state whose activities threaten the world's safety.

Click to expand...

I sincerely doubt Trump will use military force against NK. I suspect he's trying to pressure a regime thats used its nuclear build up and threats to garner attention. Maybe Kim wants another light water nuclear reactor...thanks Clinton and Bush :roll:

That said we also have a responsibillity to protect and defend our allies the region, and according to some experts on nuclear proliferation, NK is on the verge of nuclear breakout with a estimated 20 nuclear bombs and enough plutonium and highly enriched uranium to make dozens more.

The region is already at heightened state thanks to China's militarization of islands in the South China Sea and their standing dispute with Japan over the Senuku Islands, so one mistake or mistep from a rogue dictator who's intent on testing missles that can hit our allies could end badly. A co-ordinated first strike by the US and its allies may be the better option than waiting for Lil-Kim to do something immeasurably stupid, but there are people far more informed on the issue who are tasked with making those decisions than I...lets hope they know what they're doing

Jetboogieman said:

Jang Song-thaeks Pyongyang Korean BBQ restaurant, bring the WHOLE family (and we mean WHOLE).

Come for the taste, never leave for the executions.

Click to expand...

Their dog filets are particularly good.

Winston said:

Does anyone here think Trump would start a war just to boost his favorables?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

why not, he wanted to deprive 24 million of health care for that purpose (only it backfired)

sanman said:

You might as well have cited the distance between the Earth and Moon among your "facts" - my point is that you're ignoring the clear and present danger of Nork nukes against the United States. I don't care how much that fat clown frets for the future of his family throne - the rest of us don't revolve around him, we have our own lives to live. The fat clown has not been able to devise a mode of existence for himself that will allow him to coexist with us - either we get rid of him, or the fat clown will make our existence miserable, holding his nuclear knife to our throats.

You saying that "the problem isn't easily solvable" doesn't change the fact that it's going to get worse and worse, so the sooner the fat clown regime is removed, the better. If that means the US and its allies have to act unilaterally, then so be it. Furthermore, if South Korea goes "Sunshine" under some Lefty govt in the near future, and tries to undermine the US position against Pyongyang, then the US will have to lay down the law to Seoul, and tell them they'll have to fend for themselves if they don't know how to be a team player.

Click to expand...

it isn't clear and it isn't present, it's pure fantasy. The Soviets were far more of a threat in 1960s and even that was averted. Hell i would say Russia is still more of a threat given its much vaster stockpile and equal antagonism

Evacuating Seoul would precipitate such a refugee crisis and put NK on alert that oh look, they can just target the refugees and send kim jung into greater hiding, knowing what's about to happen. They have a million man army and the rest of the world doesn't have the stomach for this nonsense. If you've ever heard of MAD and the tsar bomb you should know this is just a chess match and NK will never even think of striking. All kim jung has to do is live out his days at the brothels with a side of executions and dennis rodman

It's the same with iran and anywhere else except ISIS. They would actually be crazy enough

Trump can do this. First he goes to North Korea and tells them what's on his mind. Kim Jong Un then dies of laughter. Problem solved.

NIMBY said:

So did you agree with Iraq-1, Iraq-2 and Iran-Contra WHILE they were happening?

Or do you support the current chickenhawk who was for Iraq-2 before he was against it?

Have you noticed an uptick in deployed forces since djt has come on ?

Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with the last two presidents engaging in unnecessary wars to distract from their inept domestic policies. I have noticed that the military overwhelmingly supports Trump because he has pledged to stopped throwing our service-members lives away for nothing. Unlike Hillary who openly stated that she wants to reduce our military forces and save money on Veteran's benefits by having them get killed on the battlefield.

Jetboogieman said:

Easy for you to say when it's not your homes and cities that get destroyed by the reckless actions you propose.

Click to expand...

Ohh, but you'd rather that American homes get destroyed by Kim's nukes! It would be far easier to evacuate Seoul than to live under Kim's nuclear knife at America's throat. Hillary voted for Bush to go get Saddam's non-existent WMD, but you want to give Kim a free pass to obliterate the world if he so chooses.

Trump won't do crap, except maybe try to bribe Xi this week to reign-in neighbor Kim. China's terms will be costly, but the flailing Trump administration is desperate.

sanman said:

Ohh, but you'd rather that American homes get destroyed by Kim's nukes! It would be far easier to evacuate Seoul than to live under Kim's nuclear knife at America's throat. Hillary voted for Bush to go get Saddam's non-existent WMD, but you want to give Kim a free pass to obliterate the world if he so chooses.

Click to expand...

Would it though?

Would it really?

Do you think the logistics of doing such a thing are straightforward?

Since we've already explored the notion that Kim Jong Un is developing nuclear weapons to secure his regime from threats HE perceives and we know for a fact that North Korea has thousands of artillery batteries aimed at Seoul, what do you think North Korea would do if you attempted to evacuate a city of 25 million people in order to wage a war against them?

Do you think they'll sit idly by while you complete the evacuation before bombing and invading them?

No matter how a war on the Korean peninsula plays out, South Korea and America will prevail, but before that comes, civilian casualties would be utterly appalling on both sides, the economic impact of one of the worlds largest economies being plunged into such a conflict would be devastating to the world market...

Maybe things will have to be that way, I don't know, but are you comfortable making that choice for others?

We don't know what the future holds in terms of North Koreas actions... But we know with all certainty that no matter who's the aggressor, no matter what other variables you play with, you're guaranteed to end up killing millions of innocent people.

So you're back to philosophy and morality 101.

In one scenario you kill millions, guaranteed.

And in the other, the answer is far more ambiguous, maybe it'll end up being worse, then again it might not.

But your idea of evacuating Seoul is gigantically, mind mindbogglingly ****ing idiotic.

sanman said:

President Trump says the United States is prepared to act alone against North Korea, if China doesn't help stop North Korea's nuclear program:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...b1812e-17e4-11e7-8598-9a99da559f9e_story.html





The US should be prepared to curbstomp North Korea, first evacuating much of Seoul if necessary. Doing this will make an example out of a leading pariah state whose activities threaten the world's safety.

Click to expand...

The U.S. has little to lose from North Korea. South Korea, on the other has much to lose. If the plan is to attack North Korea without the involvement of the South, then that would be a disaster. If the South is on board, then fine.

fmw said:

The U.S. has little to lose from North Korea. South Korea, on the other has much to lose. If the plan is to attack North Korea without the involvement of the South, then that would be a disaster. If the South is on board, then fine.

Click to expand...

South Korea would not be on board for a pre-emptive strike of that nature where only the US and SK are on board. That would devastate SK and it's economy.

If anything SK would engage in a covert operation to assassinate the NK leader before continuing an all military war with NK.

Praxas said:

South Korea would not be on board for a pre-emptive strike of that nature where only the US and SK are on board. That would devastate SK and it's economy.

If anything SK would engage in a covert operation to assassinate the NK leader before continuing an all military war with NK.

Click to expand...

I agree with you. My point is that for the U.S. to attack NK around SK would be a very bad idea.

Jetboogieman said:

Well here's the thing, I understand a thing or two about DPRK, but unfortunately a best course of action isn't among them, people who get paid to do this **** don't know what to do so it's doubtful I would.

<snip>

And I'm spent.

Click to expand...

I distilled your reply down to the important stuff.


What a bunch of happy horse ****. All that was supposed to be what, some deep and profound analysis of NK? Except for the health scare to the Chinese, all of that is pretty common knowledge to even those who give only passing interest to the topic of NK. Why not at least give some pertinent information, maybe like the background as to how we got entangled in the mess in the first place? So we understand what a strong president can/should/possibly will have to do before it is totally out of reach and totally out of control?



I mean tell us how Clinton, Bubba this time, fumbled this into the hands of Ol Jimmy Carter and wow, what a, to put it politely, screw up. Carter, like another former and undeserving president, pretty much received a Nobel Prize for his for his decades of untiring effort to find ways to kick the can down the road regarding sticky international conflicts.

C'mon now, I want to be enthralled, mesmerized, I want to impressed, make me more curious... draw me in with the depth and breadth of your knowledge, you know, ... we all wanna at least be mentally...




I mean, if you are trying **** us, at least give us a little bit of foreplay.

fmw said:

The U.S. has little to lose from North Korea. South Korea, on the other has much to lose. If the plan is to attack North Korea without the involvement of the South, then that would be a disaster. If the South is on board, then fine.

Click to expand...

"The US has little to lose from North Korea"??? You mean when Hillary and nearly all the other Democrats voted to support Bush's failed invasion of Iraq over allegations of WMD, then that was okay, but meanwhile it's perfectly okay for Crazy Kim to build a nuclear arsenal he can point at the US to hold a knife to its throat? Why is it okay for Crazy Kim to be able to target US cities for nuclear anihilation? Just because you think it's all just a petty gag or bluff?

sanman said:

"The US has little to lose from North Korea"??? You mean when Hillary and nearly all the other Democrats voted to support Bush's failed invasion of Iraq over allegations of WMD, then that was okay, but meanwhile it's perfectly okay for Crazy Kim to build a nuclear arsenal he can point at the US to hold a knife to its throat? Why is it okay for Crazy Kim to be able to target US cities for nuclear anihilation? Just because you think it's all just a petty gag or bluff?

Click to expand...

I didn't say any of those things. But the U.S. still has little to lose at the hands of North Korea. If Kim tried to attack the U.S., his senior military officers would kill him and take over. It isn't going to happen. Relax.