Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Trump and North Korea


Recommended Posts

courage...

 

is being afraid but saddling up anyway.

 

 

                                                   -JOHN WAYNE

 

:)

Words from the mouth of someone who should know. (sarcasm) :rolleyes:

Too bad the man behind that name (Marion Mitchell Morrison) didn't find it within himself to personally live up to those words.

Wayne was perhaps a better actor than many realized, when it came to playing at being brave on the screen.

But in action the real "man" chose the alternate route during WW2.

 

A chicken hawk is truly someone to quote and draw inspiration from. (being facetious)

But then some of those who blindly follow the rule of Trump apparently find much comfort in commonality.

 

It saddens me that you choose to support your political persuasion with a plethora of fanciful and often bane screen-written movie and TV quotes. 

 

However much we may wish that this was all just a movie-like "fantasy," or some horrible nightmare, that we can easily wake-up from, the deadly seriousness of the subject matter is reality and not just a childish game.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

The U.S. is putting on display its military might for North Korea.-

 

"American bombers and fighter escorts have flown to the farthest point north of the border between North and South Korea by any such U.S. aircraft this century.

 

The Pentagon says the mission in international airspace shows how seriously President Donald Trump takes what’s being called North Korea’s “reckless behavior.” Officials also say the mission sends a message that Trump has “many military options to defeat any threat.”

 

North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong Un, has said Trump would “pay dearly” for threatening to “totally destroy” North Korea if the U.S. was forced to defend itself or its allies against a North Korean attack.

Kim’s foreign minister told reporters this past week that the North’s response to Trump “could be the most powerful detonation of an H-bomb in the Pacific.”..........

 

https://apnews.com/3496822cab06401099f0b733757f06e6?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP

 

:blink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

North Korea have just issued a statement saying that Trump's tweet is an issuance of a declaration of war.

Well there you go.  Trump declares war via his Twitter account.  How many millions may die as a result?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

....

 

We need to take seriously the possibility that Donald Trump is trying to goad Kim Jong-un into a first strike, so he can respond.

 

 

(-the ULTIMATE Distraction!)

 

:o

 

That would be the kind of twisted logic that could possibly make sense to a distorted mind.

So yes, we do need to seriously consider it as a possibility...

 

The consequences will still be horrendous, in either event.

Even if China and Russia live up to their stated non-intervention in the event N. Korea strikes first.

We will still write off the existence of both N. & S. Korea as any kind of functioning entity, as well as collateral damage (if not direct involvement) to the many other nations within the region, including Japan and China itself.

We would also be subject to sacrificing not only our own military and civilian personnel on the peninsula, but elsewhere as well, including Guam, and possibly a city or two in the states.

And all of the imports we have grown to depend upon from Korea, Japan, China, and elsewhere will suddenly cease.

But that will be small potatoes compared to the calamity that will ensue after the electromagnetic pulse from an initial atmospheric blast takes out the stateside power grid.

 

Of course, any discussion of climate change and ever intensifying weather related calamities would definitely be sidelined (for awhile at least).

And the expense of helping poor little Puerto Rico rebuild itself will be totally overshadowed by any world-wide efforts to recover from the planets first nuclear war. 

 

But I suppose Trump could brag from his bunker (to himself since he will have destroyed his ability to tweet for awhile), that "he" finally took care of the "Korea problem." And the horrific results would either cause Iran and other such states to be scared  **** -less, to the point where they would either abandon their nuclear aspirations altogether, or accelerate their pursuit of them with ever greater intensity.

 

Once the many decades of "deterrence" from using nuclear weapons against another nuclear (or even non-nuclear) power have evaporated in a puff of radioactive smoke, all bets will be off, as we enter a "brave new" and even more uncertain nuclear age!

Edited by Stephan55
Edited for Language
Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be the kind of twisted logic that could possibly make sense to a distorted mind.

So yes, we do need to seriously consider it as a possibility...

 

The consequences will still be horrendous, in either event.

Even if China and Russia live up to their stated non-intervention in the event N. Korea strikes first.

We will still write off the existence of both N. & S. Korea as any kind of functioning entity, as well as collateral damage (if not direct involvement) to the many other nations within the region, including Japan and China itself.

We would also be subject to sacrificing not only our own military and civilian personnel on the peninsula, but elsewhere as well, including Guam, and possibly city or two in the states.

And all of the imports we have grown to depend upon from Korea, Japan, China, and elsewhere will suddenly cease.

But that will be small potatoes compared to the calamity that will ensue after the electromagnetic pulse from an initial atmospheric blast takes out the stateside power grid.

 

Of course, any discussion of climate change and ever intensifying weather related calamities would definitely be sidelined (for awhile at least).

And the expense of helping poor little Puerto Rico rebuild itself will be totally overshadowed by any world-wide efforts to recover from the planets first nuclear war. 

 

But I suppose Trump could brag from his bunker (to himself since he will have destroyed his ability to tweet for awhile), that "he" finally took care of the "Korea problem." And the horrific results would either cause Iran and other such states to be scared  ****, to the point where they would either abandon their nuclear aspirations altogether, or accelerate their pursuit of them with ever greater intensity.

 

Once the many decades of "deterrence" from using nuclear weapons against another nuclear (or even non-nuclear) power have evaporated in a puff of radioactive smoke, all bets will be off, as we enter a "brave new" and even more uncertain nuclear age!

than humanists and secularists should reconsider their rejection and dismissal of the existence of an almighty God.

:D

Edited by TCMModerator1
Edited Quote for Language
Link to post
Share on other sites

than humanists and secularists should reconsider their rejection and dismissal of the existence of an almighty God.

:D

 

If or when the previous described scenario takes place, then all those surviving religious fanatics who long for the fulfilment of prophesies ending the world as we know it as written in 2 Peter 3:10

"But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare." NIV translation

Will have the last laugh, and will no doubt be singing hosanna's of praise to their messiah Trump for bringing it all about!

Link to post
Share on other sites

If or when the previous described scenario takes place, then all those surviving religious fanatics who long for the fulfilment of prophesies ending the world as we know it as written in 2 Peter 3:10

"But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare." NIV translation

Will have the last laugh, and will no doubt be singing hosanna's of praise to their messiah Trump for bringing it all about!

If? consider this. there is no weapon of warfare devised my the minds of men that has not been used...including nuclear.

 

the horrors of heroshima and nagasaki have served as a fearful sword of democles for more than 70 years now...but will it continue?

 

if not, reconsideration of the existence of God is nothing short of extremely prudent...perhaps even imperative.  :D

 

"a fear of the lord is the beginning of wisdom."

Link to post
Share on other sites

If? consider this. there is no weapon of warfare devised my the minds of men that has not been used...including nuclear.

 

the horrors of heroshima and nagasaki has served as a fearful sword of democles for more than 70 years now...but will it continue?

 

if not, reconsideration of the existence of God is nothing short of extremely prudent...perhaps even imperative.  :D

 

"a fear of the lord is the beginning of wisdom."

The atomic bombs we used against Japan in WW2 was a scenario where a "nuclear" power used its then ultimate weapons of destruction against a non-nuclear power.

To date no nuclear power has waged such a war with another nuclear power. And even in a lopsided war with N.Korea, it would be a major nuclear power wiping out a minor nuclear power.

Or for bibliophiles, it would be like one nation being bruised (us), while the other nation being mortally wounded (them) i.e. "he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."

 

There are weapons in our arsenal of destruction that we have not yet used against mankind.

We have developed "wonderful" NBC capabilities almost beyond imagination.

Chemical agents that the Nazi's and Japanese could only have dreamt about. Biological chimera's that never existed in nature, and for which there is no treatment or "cure."

And other than testing, we have yet to use a thermonuclear weapon in actual war.

 

Yes, the fear of reciprocal nuclear weapons has held us somewhat in check since 1949, in the sense that though it hasn't prevented warfare, it has limited it to "conventional" weapons, with the exception of a few chemical agents here and there. 

 

None of us know how long that kind of deterrence will last. But since no one can un-invent nuclear weapons, or long prevent their proliferation, then "deterence," such as it is, appears to be the only way to hopefully assure that they "never" be used as intended.

Sort of like a gun owner having a firearm for home defense, but praying that he never actually has to shoot somebody.

 

Proverbs, aside, I do not deny the existence of a god, or gods. But I decry any religion foisted upon another through "fear" of destruction.

And I know of no religious state that has not (sooner or later) used some form of persecution or ostracism as a "tool" against minority religions to force conformity.

Given free agency I'll choose critical thinking and evidence over dogma and superstition practically everytime. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ellsberg, In Upcoming Book, Warns of Nuclear Dangers in the Era of Trump -

 

 

"...., no matter the president, from Truman and Ike to Obama and Trump, it has been American policy to launch a nuclear first-strike even if we have not yet been attacked.

 

It is Ellsberg’s belief that multiple presidents have used nuclear weapons in threatening other nations since Nagasaki. He presents a long list of such moments, and along with many, he is particularly worried about Trump’s recklessness toward North Korea.

He recalls Trump asking an adviser about nuclear weapons, “If we have them, why can’t we use them?” Trump also wondered if our allies, Japan and South Korea, should consider designing their own nukes....

 

But he also argues that accidental nuclear war is a real threat, and that the final decision to fire weapons may be delegated to subordinates in the US and Russia and probably in other nuclear nations.

 

Vital information about all things nuclear, meanwhile, has been kept from the public for decades:

 

“Like discussion of covert operations and assassination plots, nuclear war plans and threats are taboo for public discussion by the small minority of officials and consultants who know anything about them.”

 

Few in Congress even know much about them......

 

http://billmoyers.com/story/ellsberg-upcoming-book-warns-trump-nuclear-dangers/

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
people doan want the truth from people they can't stand like trump. he said it! and it's completely true. his last 2 predecessors failed. bush and obama. so the other side seems to be intimating that to avoid thermonuclear war LET short fat and ugly have nuclear weapons. hmmm...that certainly does make sense. trump will do what others were to gutless to do.

eliminate the problem by addressing it. american politicians have emasculated themselves with fear.

 

"that will stop!" -jack hawkins, ben-hur


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sort of think Kim Jong Un  cares too much about his self preservation to launch a first strike attack.  We will not.  Just the usual "bluff and bluster".  NK propaganda is more for their people than us.

 

It's just a voice with scorn and hate.......George Orwell.

 

2FD46AAE00000578-0-image-a-3_14521707954

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

people doan want the truth from people they can't stand like trump. he said it! and it's completely true. his last 2 predecessors failed. bush and obama. so the other side seems to be intimating that to avoid thermonuclear war LET short fat and ugly have nuclear weapons. hmmm...that certainly does make sense. trump will do what others were to gutless to do.
eliminate the problem by addressing it. american politicians have emasculated themselves with fear.
 
"that will stop!" -jack hawkins, ben-hur
 

 

Nip, I believe that you may have read at least some of the posts in this, and other threads, and maybe even read or at least looked at, or perhaps heard what some of those who have a far greater insight into the depth of these issues have written or said.

Credible sources, which rules out your beloved "donny." 

But I don't think that you have actually comprehended any of it.

 

First, most rational persons realize that an element of "truth" can come from many sources, including those that one may not otherwise agree with.

Your beloved "donny" has a long history of, at best, confabulating.  His idea of "truth" has been proven, numerous times, to be contrary to indisputable fact/s. That is unless they are "alternative facts" invented by himself. So it makes "good sense" for rational persons to consider what he says very carefully. To scrutinize his words no less than they would (or should) anyone else, and probably even more so, considering his history of falsities, and especially considering the office that he holds. 

That said, critical thinking does not rule out the possibility that "donny" may actually say something that is worthwhile, populist and even truthful every now and then, regardless of his sincerity.

 

I never really disliked "donny" as a person before, I didn't know him well enough, or care enough one way or another to do so.

What "donny" said or did, didn't personally affect me, so I could easily ignore him. At best, he was a somewhat entertaining narcissist.

Despite his propensity for racism and blurting, in another day and age, he may even have been a "good guy" to go out womanizing with.

Your "donny" is undeniably an opportunist, but a business genius he is not.

He may once have been a "good" guy to have at your back in a "street brawl" or as a "union buster," or maybe even a "gang leader", but that does not impart the necessary and desirable qualities to make him effective in the office which he now holds. At least in the minds of a growing number of "thinking," reasoning Americans. 

 

So please don't pull the "people doan want the truth from people they can't stand like trump,"  "trump" card, as that not only insults many who hear it, but it degrades anything of substance that you may actually have to say.

 

"he said it! and it's completely true." I am sorry to say, that those two sentences completely contradict each other.

 

"his last 2 predecessors failed. bush and obama."

I can likely agree with you regarding both of those on numerous issues, as I could with any of "our" past administrations.

In our brief history each of "our" presidents has had their share of successes and failures, that is a given. It remains for posterity  to determine which of those carried the greater weight.

 

"so the other side seems to be intimating that to avoid thermonuclear war LET short fat and ugly have nuclear weapons."

Well Nip, as fruitless an effort as it may well be, I will attempt to enlighten you... He already has them, and has since 2006.

So it is no longer a question of preventing him from acquiring something that he already possesses.

The only way for "tall fat & ugly" to keep "short fat and ugly" from personally using those weapons, which he already has, is to covertly "take him out of the picture."

But there is no other way, aside from the slim chance of "carrot & stick" diplomacy, to coerce N. Korea into disarming themselves when they view that most of the world and especially the United States is bent upon their destruction.

So the question is do "we" start a nuclear war, a potential thermonuclear war, to prevent a nuclear war???

 

"hmmm...that certainly does make sense."  (non-sense)

 

And every U.S. administration has had to deal with that same question, since the Soviets became the second nuclear power on Aug 29, 1949.

Their first response was an arms race. After narrowly avoiding a nuclear war in Oct. 1962, they eventually settled on the deterrence of a policy called MAD.

If you were alive back then and of a reasonable age (and mind), you may have been just as fearful as the majority of us were.

However, in all fairness to you and your beloved "donny" there were a few "warhawks" around at those times of a similar mindset as yourselves, that thought, spoke and advised that "we" should show the world whose boss and go ahead and start that nuclear war, irregardless of the consequences.

Even if nobody would be around afterward, at least "we" showed those "ruskies" and the world who was at the top of the heap (of rubble that is).

 

"trump will do what others were to gutless to do."

Now your talking about "gutless" Truman (a ww1 artillery captain), Eisenhower (a career soldier, veteran, and general of the allied armed forces during ww2), Kennedy (a navy JG Lt ww2 vet.), Johnson (a navy Lt CDR during ww2), Nixon (also promoted to navy Lt CDR during ww2), Ford (a navy JG Lt ww2 vet.), Carter (a post ww2 sub officer), Reagan (a Cpt in the AAF stateside Motion Picture Unit during ww2), G.H.W. Bush (a navy pilot in ww2 vet.),  Clinton (a Vietnam war protester who avoided the draft), G.W. Bush (an air NG pilot who avoided service in Vietnam), Obama (civilian, too young for Vietnam, no military experience), ...

And finally, your beloved "donny" Trump (a 2nd gen U.S. citizen, as a teen sent to NY Military Academy, during Vietnam classified 1-Y due to "heal spurs," later received a high lottery number), whom you infer is "full of the guts" that were denied all previous presidents that had to deal with adversarial nuclear powers since 1949, and somehow managed to avoid going to nuclear war with them.

 

"eliminate the problem by addressing it."

Of course it isn't exactly clear how he will actually address the problem.

If he has some master plan to take Kim out without initiating or provoking a nuclear war, then I'm all ears.

However talk is cheap, and can be provocatively dangerous, but for some it's far easier to act like you're "brave" when somebody else (or millions of some bodies) will pay the price for your folly.

 

"american politicians have emasculated themselves with fear."

I'd agree that most American politicians have allowed themselves to be emasculated, but more thoroughly by greed, avarice, and sloth of duty.

However, fear of nuclear annihilation is a common denominator that most humans, wherever they are, share.

It's a different kind of fear than facing ones imminent mortality.

Persons can willing sacrifice themselves for loved ones, for family, for friends, and even for an ideal or country.

It's not the same as being afraid to die for something that may be of greater purpose than self.

But such annihilation deprives all nobility of purpose in giving  that "last full measure of devotion" when there is no one left to honor the dead. No loved ones, no family, no friends, no ideals, no country...

No one left to carry on.

And all that finality to satisfy an inflated ego? Because no one chose to find a better way to co-exist? 

 

"that will stop!"

Yes, everything that we value will cease.

 

All things have their time and place, and so it is with man.

"Leaders" and dictators come and go. Nations and regimes rise and fall. 

If  "we" allow ourselves, we can live past the despotism of Kim, the megalomania of Trump. To an era where more rational minds may hopefully prevail.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nip

 

Nice post Stephan.  But I am reminded of the time that Ted Cruz tried to reason and debate with two braindead Trump supporters beside his tour bus.  Whenever he seemed to score some intellectual point they both started shouting "lying Ted" in unison and drowned him out.  It was actually quite funny and pathetic at the same time.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nip, I believe that you may have read at least some of the posts in this, and other threads, and maybe even read or at least looked at, or perhaps heard what some of those who have a far greater insight into the depth of these issues have written or said.

Credible sources, which rules out your beloved "donny." 

But I don't think that you have actually comprehended any of it.

 

First, most rational persons realize that an element of "truth" can come from many sources, including those that one may not otherwise agree with.

Your beloved "donny" has a long history of, at best, confabulating.  His idea of "truth" has been proven, numerous times, to be contrary to indisputable fact/s. That is unless they are "alternative facts" invented by himself. So it makes "good sense" for rational persons to consider what he says very carefully. To scrutinize his words no less than they would (or should) anyone else, and probably even more so, considering his history of falsities, and especially considering the office that he holds. 

That said, critical thinking does not rule out the possibility that "donny" may actually say something that is worthwhile, populist and even truthful every now and then, regardless of his sincerity.

 

I never really disliked "donny" as a person before, I didn't know him well enough, or care enough one way or another to do so.

What "donny" said or did, didn't personally affect me, so I could easily ignore him. At best, he was a somewhat entertaining narcissist.

Despite his propensity for racism and blurting, in another day and age, he may even have been a "good guy" to go out womanizing with.

Your "donny" is undeniably an opportunist, but a business genius he is not.

He may once have been a "good" guy to have at your back in a "street brawl" or as a "union buster," or maybe even a "gang leader", but that does not impart the necessary and desirable qualities to make him effective in the office which he now holds. At least in the minds of a growing number of "thinking," reasoning Americans. 

 

So please don't pull the "people doan want the truth from people they can't stand like trump,"  "trump" card, as that not only insults many who hear it, but it degrades anything of substance that you may actually have to say.

 

"he said it! and it's completely true." I am sorry to say, that those two sentences completely contradict each other.

 

"his last 2 predecessors failed. bush and obama."

I can likely agree with you regarding both of those on numerous issues, as I could with any of "our" past administrations.

In our brief history each of "our" presidents has had their share of successes and failures, that is a given. It remains for posterity  to determine which of those carried the greater weight.

 

"so the other side seems to be intimating that to avoid thermonuclear war LET short fat and ugly have nuclear weapons."

Well Nip, as fruitless an effort as it may well be, I will attempt to enlighten you... He already has them, and has since 2006.

So it is no longer a question of preventing him from acquiring something that he already possesses.

The only way for "tall fat & ugly" to keep "short fat and ugly" from personally using those weapons, which he already has, is to covertly "take him out of the picture."

But there is no other way, aside from the slim chance of "carrot & stick" diplomacy, to coerce N. Korea into disarming themselves when they view that most of the world and especially the United States is bent upon their destruction.

So the question is do "we" start a nuclear war, a potential thermonuclear war, to prevent a nuclear war???

 

"hmmm...that certainly does make sense."  (non-sense)

 

And every U.S. administration has had to deal with that same question, since the Soviets became the second nuclear power on Aug 29, 1949.

Their first response was an arms race. After narrowly avoiding a nuclear war in Oct. 1962, they eventually settled on the deterrence of a policy called MAD.

If you were alive back then and of a reasonable age (and mind), you may have been just as fearful as the majority of us were.

However, in all fairness to you and your beloved "donny" there were a few "warhawks" around at those times of a similar mindset as yourselves, that thought, spoke and advised that "we" should show the world whose boss and go ahead and start that nuclear war, irregardless of the consequences.

Even if nobody would be around afterward, at least "we" showed those "ruskies" and the world who was at the top of the heap (of rubble that is).

 

"trump will do what others were to gutless to do."

Now your talking about "gutless" Truman (a ww1 artillery captain), Eisenhower (a career soldier, veteran, and general of the allied armed forces during ww2), Kennedy (a navy JG Lt ww2 vet.), Johnson (a navy Lt CDR during ww2), Nixon (also promoted to navy Lt CDR during ww2), Ford (a navy JG Lt ww2 vet.), Carter (a post ww2 sub officer), Reagan (a Cpt in the AAF stateside Motion Picture Unit during ww2), G.H.W. Bush (a navy pilot in ww2 vet.),  Clinton (a Vietnam war protester who avoided the draft), G.W. Bush (an air NG pilot who avoided service in Vietnam), Obama (civilian, too young for Vietnam, no military experience), ...

And finally, your beloved "donny" Trump (a 2nd gen U.S. citizen, as a teen sent to NY Military Academy, during Vietnam classified 1-Y due to "heal spurs," later received a high lottery number), whom you infer is "full of the guts" that were denied all previous presidents that had to deal with adversarial nuclear powers since 1949, and somehow managed to avoid going to nuclear war with them.

 

"eliminate the problem by addressing it."

Of course it isn't exactly clear how he will actually address the problem.

If he has some master plan to take Kim out without initiating or provoking a nuclear war, then I'm all ears.

However talk is cheap, and can be provocatively dangerous, but for some it's far easier to act like you're "brave" when somebody else (or millions of some bodies) will pay the price for your folly.

 

"american politicians have emasculated themselves with fear."

I'd agree that most American politicians have allowed themselves to be emasculated, but more thoroughly by greed, avarice, and sloth of duty.

However, fear of nuclear annihilation is a common denominator that most humans, wherever they are, share.

It's a different kind of fear than facing ones imminent mortality.

Persons can willing sacrifice themselves for loved ones, for family, for friends, and even for an ideal or country.

It's not the same as being afraid to die for something that may be of greater purpose than self.

But such annihilation deprives all nobility of purpose in giving  that "last full measure of devotion" when there is no one left to honor the dead. No loved ones, no family, no friends, no ideals, no country...

No one left to carry on.

And all that finality to satisfy an inflated ego? Because no one chose to find a better way to co-exist? 

 

"that will stop!"

Yes, everything that we value will cease.

 

All things have their time and place, and so it is with man.

"Leaders" and dictators come and go. Nations and regimes rise and fall. 

If  "we" allow ourselves, we can live past the despotism of Kim, the megalomania of Trump. To an era where more rational minds may hopefully prevail.

that schtootz neville chamberlain woulda let kim jong un have his weapons...donny trump will not. that's all I need to know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

All things have their time and place, and so it is with man.

"Leaders" and dictators come and go. Nations and regimes rise and fall. 

If  "we" allow ourselves, we can live past the despotism of Kim, the megalomania of Trump. To an era where more rational minds may hopefully prevail.

How? you tell me how we can co-exist with kim jong un with nuclear ICBMs? do we tell the denizens of SoCal to go bleep themselves they're on their own?

 

just how do we 'allow' ourselves not to be bothered by NK ICBMs? pretend they're just suped up roman candles? :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

How? you tell me how we can co-exist with kim jong un with nuclear ICBMs? do we tell the denizens of SoCal to go bleep themselves they're on their own?

 

just how do we 'allow' ourselves not to be bothered by NK ICBMs? pretend they're just suped up roman candles? 

 

Maybe the same way we live with the 7 other countries that have nuclear weapons.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the same way we live with the other 7 countries that have nuclear weapons.

 

But that is NOT what the U.N.  wanted,  including Russia, China, Japan and South Korea for the last 25 years.   The can the Clinton, GWB and Obama admins AND 90% of the U.N. members kicked down the road to the current US administration was preventing N.K. from developing Nukes (there was never a goal to preventing a war).      Diplomacy will NOT prevent N.K. from continuing with their program.    I would hope everyone would agrees with that.   

 

While I believe the goal should change and the WORLD needs to accept a nuclear N.K. to me it is unfair to fault the Trump admin for  pushing forward with what is clearly the still standing goal of the WORLD:  preventing N.K. from developing Nukes or to fault the admin for NOT continuing with diplomatic solutions that have all been tried and failed, countless times.  

 

E.g. instead of the U.N. voting  for MORE sanctions they should have voted to STOP all sanctions and passed a resolution accepting N.K. developing nukes.      The fact the U.N. agreed with the US on MORE sanctions means the U.N. still has the same goal but also want the U.S. to be the only one talking any risks to meet the goal.    I.e. the WORLD is using the US as the WORLD police.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But that is NOT what the U.N.  wanted,  including Russia, China, Japan and South Korea for the last 25 years.   The can the Clinton, GWB and Obama admins AND 90% of the U.N. members kicked down the road to the current US administration was preventing N.K. from developing Nukes (there was never a goal to preventing a war).      Diplomacy will NOT prevent N.K. from continuing with their program.    I would hope everyone would agrees with that.   

 

While I believe the goal should change and the WORLD needs to accept a nuclear N.K. to me it is unfair to fault the Trump admin for  pushing forward with what is clearly the still standing goal of the WORLD:  preventing N.K. from developing Nukes or to fault the admin for NOT continuing with diplomatic solutions that have all been tried and failed, countless times.  

 

E.g. instead of the U.N. voting  for MORE sanctions they should have voted to STOP all sanctions and passed a resolution accepting N.K. developing nukes.      The fact the U.N. agreed with the US on MORE sanctions means the U.N. still has the same goal but also want the U.S. to be the only one talking any risks to meet the goal.    I.e. the WORLD is using the US as the WORLD police.

 

That plan's working out great, isn't it? Seeing as how NK already has nuclear weapons, I would say that strategy failed. Whatever the plan was in the past or by whomever, preventing the NK nuclear program has proven a failure. So now the question becomes do we accept NK as a nuclear power or do we start a war? That is where we are at. The rest is for the history books.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

That plan's working out great, isn't it? Seeing as how NK already has nuclear weapons, I would say that strategy failed. Whatever the plan was in the past or by whomever, preventing the NK nuclear program has proven a failure. So now the question becomes do we accept NK as a nuclear power or do we start a war? That is where we are at. The rest is for the history books.

 

I agree.   So why did the U.N.  Security Council,  including China and Russia,  vote for more sanctions?    I agree that keeping the current goal is insanity BUT that is what the WORLD is doing.    Too many post around here make it sound like this goal was something Trump and his admin pulled from the sky.     NOT.

 

But you again use the term 'do WE'.   It is not just WE (the USA),  it is the WORLD.   Again, the WORLD is using the USA as their puppet when it comes to preventing nations from developing nukes.   

 

This reminds me of High Noon, where the USA is Cooper and the Town folks are the WORLD.      We (the USA),  should announce to the WORLD we are done trying to defend THEM since when the going gets tough they tell us to leave town! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That plan's working out great, isn't it? Seeing as how NK already has nuclear weapons, I would say that strategy failed. Whatever the plan was in the past or by whomever, preventing the NK nuclear program has proven a failure. So now the question becomes do we accept NK as a nuclear power or do we start a war? That is where we are at. The rest is for the history books.

Perhaps the negotiations (diplomacy) should be to permit NK to have nuclear weapons, but to limit the types?  Who knows, maybe Tillerson and China were laying the groundwork for something such as that.

Regardless, going to war is a final solution when all others have been exhausted.  After all, we didn't go to war to keep the Soviet Union, China and other countries from having nuclear weapons.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps the negotiations (diplomacy) should be to permit NK to have nuclear weapons, but to limit the types?  Who knows, maybe Tillerson and China were laying the groundwork for something such as that.

Regardless, going to war is a final solution when all others have been exhausted.  After all, we didn't go to war to keep the Soviet Union, China and other countries from having nuclear weapons.

 

I agree, which is the point I was trying to make, Trump's rhetoric of late has been that war is inevitable and imminent. I'm hoping that's not the case. As for why the U.S. has been at the forefront of this issue (which we usually are on these international issues; flaunting the title of "world's greatest superpower" and "first among nations" comes at a price), the U.S. has been directly and repeatedly threatened by NK, unlike most others countries, with the exception of SK and, to a lesser degree, Japan. I would say that NK, and specifically Kim Jong Un, has reason to be afraid of us, after we labeled them a member of the "Axis of Evil" under GWB, and have openly and repeatedly called for the ouster, peacefully or violently, of whichever Kim is in power at the time. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...