North Korea: Do we or don't we (invade)?

[Musburger1]

The problem is you were simply parroting CNN, MSNBC, Huffington anc other liberal outlets. That is essentially what Mika was fighting went Trump for.

The fact that Trump even stoops to the level of engaging in tweet wars with these clowns is enough to make his judgement suspect. And naming Nikki Haley, the rabid warmonger, as UN ambassador shows me Trump is off his rocker.

 

[I35]

Perfect examples of why dems lost the 2016 election.

Trump is at best 5. Kim is somewhere below 5, I'm not sure where. 5 is not where you want the leader of the country to be.

Again, after theiioftx stated the above and you come back with this. You have no idea why Trump is President and it's actually amusing that you can't figure it out.

 

[I35]

The fact that Trump even stoops to the level of engaging in tweet wars with these clowns is enough to make his judgement suspect. And naming Nikki Haley, the rabid warmonger, as UN ambassador shows me Trump is off his rocker.

Oh Boy!

 

[Musburger1]

Trump is President because the system is corrupt and broken. The majority of the country did not trust Hillary Clinton and the Democrat Party lost credibility with the working class.

I don't think I have to convince you that the DNC is corrupt and broken. I'm sure you think that the Republican Party just needs a tweak here and there and everything will be just fine. Growth will continue higher, living standards improve, yada yada yada.

From all appearances, the Party in power doesn't even set the agenda. It's apparent that the Israel lobby, the Saudi lobby, the military-industrial complex, the biggest banks, etc. make the policy decisions and merely use the President as a conduit. While the President and Congress have input, they have become subservient many of the entrenched bureaucracies as well as the moneyed interests; if not totally, certainly to a greater degree than what occurred previously.

 

[Musburger1]

Oh Boy!

Nikki Haley is total disgrace. She is a laughingstock. I thought Susan Rice was at bad as it gets, but Nikki Haley is probably even worse.

 

[theiioftx]

Susan Rice? Wow, is ignorance bliss?

 

[Brad Austin]

Haley is a good fit for her Ambassador post as the modern hostility and anti-American UN sentiment is the ideal setting to unleash our pitbull.

Other US presidents with no interest to appease and compromise our interests used the pitbull tactic at the UN before.

Why wasn't the UN hostile towards us under Obama? Because he was bowing down and compromising to form global coalitions over America's best interests.

The UN is a sham organization with enemies in every direction. Under an America-first mindset, our US Ambassador serves little more purpose than to aggressively defend American interests from gang attacks and force-feed our actions to the resistance.

Aside from the enablers in Canada and most European countries, every other country's ambassador is there aggressively serving their country's interests first at the UN.

Nothing Haley does is gonna set our international policy without POTUS striking the deal himself with other world leaders.

Might as well let her spend her days biting chunks out of those corrupt SOB's every chance she gets.

As for Obama's choices of Rice and Power, they're the types an appeaser sends with orders to bend over and sell us out to the int'l community.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Why wasn't the UN hostile under Obama? Because he was bowing down and not aggressively defending America's best interests.

Clearly, the previous administration felt different tactics were in the US best interests. Time will tell but I'm betting that in 4 years the Obama admins tactics of partnering with our allies and back channel negotiations will prove more effective.

The UN is a sham organization with enemies in every direction. Under an America-first mindset, our US Ambassador serves little more purpose than to defend American interests from gang attacks on all sides.

Enemies in every direction? Every country in the world is represented thus any enemies should be present. It's an inherently inefficient organization. We've taken our fair share of shots at the UN but we've also leveraged it multiple times to isolate Russia from it's allies. Iraq being the most prominent case where the UN was a useful tool towards US strategic desires.

As for Obama's choices of Rice and Power, they're the types an appeaser sends with orders to bend over and sell us out to the int'l community.

Have you served in the military? If not, the internet toughguy persona rings hollow. Diplomacy is just as important as military might. I served in the Army just after the first Gulf War.

 

[Musburger1]

Haley is a good fit for her Ambassador post as the modern hostility and anti-American UN sentiment is the ideal setting to unleash our pitbull.

Plenty US president's with no interest to appease and compromise our interests used the pitbull tactic at the UN before.

Why wasn't the UN hostile towards us under Obama? Because he was bowing down and compromising to form global coalitions over America's best interests.

The UN is a sham organization with enemies in every direction. Under an America-first mindset, our US Ambassador serves little more purpose than to defend American interests from gang attacks on all sides.

Aside from the enablers in Canada and most European countries, every other country's ambassador is there aggressively serving their country's interests first at the UN.

Nothing Haley does is gonna set our international policy without POTUS striking the deal himself with other world leaders.

Might as well let her spend her days biting chunks out of those corrupt SOB's every chance she gets.

As for Obama's choices of Rice and Power, they're the types an appeaser sends with orders to bend over and sell us out to the int'l community.

i meant to compare Haley with Power, not Rice, but the two are basically the same.

Haley is exactly like Power. Both are hypocritical nitwits that Cite UN violations by opponents and threaten consequences while at the same time disregard UN violations committed by the US. Haley did this just the other day in a single speech.

 

[Clean]

Charles Krauthammer had a couple of fresh takes. One was to put nukes back into SKorea. We took them out in 1991. The other idea was to encourage Japan to develop nukes, which will piss off China and NKorea.

Also, in spite of Musburger1's opinion of Haley, I thought her speech was spot on. Although she didn't mention China by name, her threat to punish countries that violate the UN embargo on NKorea rang true.

 

[Brad Austin]

Cite UN violations by opponents and threaten consequences while at the same time disregard UN violations committed by the US

Have you not seen the never-ending line of hypocritical resolutions and decisions these collections of whackjobs propose and often pass?

Haley is doing exactly what a pitbull should to combat this garbage. Bite in defense, bite first, even ignore she did the same thing she's biting for and bite harder.

Sorry if I could care less how aggressive and hypocritical she treats her counterparts at that clown show riddled with corruption and only good for punchless threats.

Other than Israel, there's only maybe a few others there that don't desire a significantly weakened US position and would secretly sign off on it if they could.

 

[Musburger1]

Charles Krauthammer had a couple of fresh takes. One was to put nukes back into SKorea. We took them out in 1991. The other idea was to encourage Japan to develop nukes, which will piss off China and NKorea.

Also, in spite of Musburger1's opinion of Haley, I thought her speech was spot on. Although she didn't mention China by name, her threat to punish countries that violate the UN embargo on NKorea rang true.

She also said that the US would not abide by any "watered down UN resolutions" but would basically do as we please if the UN doesn't provide the right remedy. She's an arrogant embicil.

Power used to go ona and on about Russia violating sovereignty. The US is now constructing bases inside Syria and has targeted Syrian aircraft when the US continues to violate the country's sovereignty. Hypocrisy everywhere you look.

 

[Brad Austin]

She also said that the US would not abide by any "watered down UN resolutions" but would basically do as we please if the UN doesn't provide the right remedy. She's an arrogant embicil.

So you really believe UN resolutions which require major adversary approval from the Big Five and can be defeated by a single veto should dictate our foreign policy?

WOW!!! Very revealing. You might want to check history. We've been doing this very thing for decades before BO became their stooge and gave the UN undeserved and unprecedented credibility in US foreign affairs.

 

[Musburger1]

So you really believe UN resolutions which require adversary approval from the Big Five and can be defeated by a single veto should dictate our foreign policy?

WOW!!! Very revealing. You might want to check history. We've been doing this very thing for decades before BO became their stooge and gave the UN undeserved and unprecedented credibility in US foreign affairs.

The UN is very flawed, but if you aren't going to abide by decisions, and prefer policy of might makes right, you may as well totally abolish it and pursue imperial policy without pretense.

 

[Brad Austin]

The UN is very flawed, but if you aren't going to abide by decisions, and prefer policy of might makes right

Flawed? It has zero credibility. How could the US expect to have an advantageous foreign policy that requires both Russia and China to sign off on all major actions?

Should we get ISIS to sign off also since we're asking for approval from others with monumentally conflicting foreign interests?

Just like history, we'll abide by some and we'll go our own ways on others we feel are destructive to our interests.

It's laughable to assume we're the only one following that path. China and Russia do the same when it suits them.

Every major player knows the UN has no teeth and won't punish their defiant actions. It's foolish to play by the rules when our major adversaries surely don't.

 

[4th_floor]

The UN is very flawed, but if you aren't going to abide by decisions, and prefer policy of might makes right, you may as well totally abolish it and pursue imperial policy without pretense.

The UN is worse than useless. They provide a conduit for fraud at each intervention, which is luckily infrequent due to incompetence. I favor abolishing the UN and expelling all of the resident criminals.

Imperial policy? Dude, the 60s are way over. Your fellow travelers have all joined liberal think tanks to try to figure out how to import Castroism without anyone noticing.

 

[Musburger1]

The UN is worse than useless. They provide a conduit for fraud at each intervention, which is luckily infrequent due to incompetence. I favor abolishing the UN and expelling all of the resident criminals.

Imperial policy? Dude, the 60s are way over. Your fellow travelers have all joined liberal think tanks to try to figure out how to import Castroism without anyone noticing.

You make me laugh. The US has military bases and nuclear weapons circumventing the globe. The US uses the IMF and World Bank as financial weapons to keep other nations in line. The US is either bombing or supporting bombing in at least seven countries. The US is now so over extended in terms of both military operations and debt that it constitutes a danger to the entire world. We are witnessing in real time the beginning of an empire's collapse and a native population that doesn't even know it's happening.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

Both are hypocritical nitwits that Cite UN violations by opponents and threaten consequences while at the same time disregard UN violations committed by the US.

So basically, doing exactly what every other UN rep does?

 

[Musburger1]

So basically, doing exactly what every other UN rep does?

When have you seen Mexico or Vietnam threatening to launch attacks or impose sanctions against countries they have disagreements with?

 

[ProdigalHorn]

When have you seen Mexico or Vietnam threatening to launch attacks or impose sanctions against countries they have disagreements with?

I didn't realize she had that level of authority. Generally you don't see that kind of responsibility handed to a diplomat - they usually are just tasked with saying whatever their bosses tell them to say.

 

[Musburger1]

I didn't realize she had that level of authority. Generally you don't see that kind of responsibility handed to a diplomat - they usually are just tasked with saying whatever their bosses tell them to say.

Then her boss is an idiot.

 

[4th_floor]

You make me laugh. The US has military bases and nuclear weapons circumventing the globe. The US uses the IMF and World Bank as financial weapons to keep other nations in line. The US is either bombing or supporting bombing in at least seven countries. The US is now so over extended in terms of both military operations and debt that it constitutes a danger to the entire world. We are witnessing in real time the beginning of an empire's collapse and a native population that doesn't even know it's happening.

I have to agree that we are overextended. I disagree that there's an imperial policy to blame. Our military operations are supposedly to combat terrorism (the middle east) or to protect allies (Europe / Korea). We didn't conquer these allies and put troops in their midst to keep them in line. The troops are there to keep attempted conquerors from coming back.

Having said that, I think we need to bring our troops home from Europe and maybe South Korea. These areas can take care of themselves. We can sell them arms if necessary. But it's past time for us to leave.

I don't know what to do about the middle east. With Obama reversing most of what Bush did, I'm not sure if we can sustain an effort to keep Al Queda / ISIS / next group of scum in check. But I don't like the alternative of allowing ISIS to grow a strong base from which to export terrorism globally.

Your hero, Putin, does seem to have an imperial appetite. He seems bent on rebuilding the USSR and putting in an empire in the middle east whereever he can.

 

[Musburger1]

I have to agree that we are overextended. I disagree that there's an imperial policy to blame. Our military operations are supposedly to combat terrorism (the middle east) or to protect allies (Europe / Korea). We didn't conquer these allies and put troops in their midst to keep them in line. The troops are there to keep attempted conquerors from coming back.

Having said that, I think we need to bring our troops home from Europe and maybe South Korea. These areas can take care of themselves. We can sell them arms if necessary. But it's past time for us to leave.

I don't know what to do about the middle east. With Obama reversing most of what Bush did, I'm not sure if we can sustain an effort to keep Al Queda / ISIS / next group of scum in check. But I don't like the alternative of allowing ISIS to grow a strong base from which to export terrorism globally.

Your hero, Putin, does seem to have an imperial appetite. He seems bent on rebuilding the USSR and putting in an empire in the middle east whereever he can.

What countries are Russia occupying? How many foreign bases does Russia have? You are speaking nonsense.

 

[Musburger1]

I have to agree that we are overextended. I disagree that there's an imperial policy to blame. Our military operations are supposedly to combat terrorism (the middle east) or to protect allies (Europe / Korea). We didn't conquer these allies and put troops in their midst to keep them in line. The troops are there to keep attempted conquerors from coming back.

Having said that, I think we need to bring our troops home from Europe and maybe South Korea. These areas can take care of themselves. We can sell them arms if necessary. But it's past time for us to leave.

I don't know what to do about the middle east. With Obama reversing most of what Bush did, I'm not sure if we can sustain an effort to keep Al Queda / ISIS / next group of scum in check. But I don't like the alternative of allowing ISIS to grow a strong base from which to export terrorism globally.

Your hero, Putin, does seem to have an imperial appetite. He seems bent on rebuilding the USSR and putting in an empire in the middle east whereever he can.

On fighting terrorism, that's the greatest misdirection of all. Hurding terrorism is a more apt description. We kill them when they move against US interests and support them - sometimes directly and sometimes through proxies - when they attack US targets. We did this in the 80s and it's now being done again.

 

[Brad Austin]

Then her boss is an idiot.

The President is an idiot and his UN Ambassador is a nitwit and arrogant imbecile because they don't gel with your preferred foreign policy. That about right?

As far as I can tell you can't stand the imperialist American military and want us to withdraw all troops/assets from foreign lands asap. Anything less is moronic I assume.

For someone who claims to not be a Lib, you certainly have their constantly used failed tactics down pat.

Ridiculous insults and name shaming those you disagree with doesn't make them less effective or less supported by others.

Last I checked DT was a racist clown with no shot and laughed at by the left. Now he haunts their every waking moment as POTUS because the citizens put him there.

 

[Seattle Husker]

What countries are Russia occupying?

Ukraine. What do I win?

 

[4th_floor]

What countries are Russia occupying? How many foreign bases does Russia have? You are speaking nonsense.

Off the top of my head: Georgia, Ukraine, Syria, and Iran.

 

[Musburger1]

Off the top of my head: Georgia, Ukraine, Syria, and Iran.

Wrong on all counts.
The Georgian government (with a nod and blink from the US) launched a surprise attack against its own citizens killing Russian peacekeepers in the process. Russia responded by crushing the attack and easily could have toppled Georgia and removed the US puppet in charge. Instead, after securing the South Ossetian territory, they ended the response.

Ukraine. Following the US abetted coup, the pre-selected US puppet was installed ("Yats") and immediately threatened to enact discriminatory laws against the Russian population, predominantly in the southeast. Crimea resisted and the Russian military responded. The Ukrainian military was ejected from Crimea (many defected) and the citizens used democracy to declare independence and later to rejoin Russia. Can you imagine the reaction of these Crimeans if the Ukraine seized Crimea tomorrow and forced these people to be subjugated back to a government they consider to be illegal?

Syria. Russia is defending Syria on behalf of the Syrian government. If Russia had not intervened the entire country would now be a failed state under sharia law. By contrast, the US military is illegally inside Syria with plans to partition the country.

Iran. I have no idea what you are talking about. Iran is a sovereign country. Russia has temporarily been granted use of an air base in concert with the joint effort with Iran to save Syria from the US and Sunni Sponsored terrorists.

 

[4th_floor]

Wrong on all counts.........

Peacekeepers? ROTFLMAO. I guess that sounds better than occupiers. I know the people of those countries love having you there. Especially Ukraine. At least the murderous leadership of Syria and Iran invited you in to murder and oppress their populations.

 

[4th_floor]

Iran. I have no idea what you are talking about.

Then how do you know I'm wrong? Educate yourself man!