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

Seattle Husker said:
The strawman of "look the other way when another country threatens to nuke you" is absurd.
Click to expand...

So no matter what we weren't going to stop a crazed lunatic leader that is use to just killing people without a f^%k given? Are you saying our past Presidents did everything they could to prevent those nukes to be built? It's not a straw man when nukes were allowed to be built by a crazed leader. We have never had a leader like this have his hands on a nukes. There have been lunatic leaders in the past, but none that can send a rocket nuke missiles over thousands of miles over the ocean into our country.

You clearly don't understand the gravity of this situation

Seattle Husker said:
don't talk for me because you clearly aren't able to correctly relay my perspectives.
Click to expand...

Do you have Alzheimer? That is your perspective. We've discussed this before. I asked you point blank and of course you gave the typical liberal answer.
 
I35 said:
So no matter what we weren't going to stop a crazed lunatic leader that is use to just killing people without a f^%k given? Are you saying our past Presidents did everything they could to prevent those nukes to be built? It's not a straw man when nukes were allowed to be built by a crazed leader. We have never had a leader like this have his hands on a nukes. There have been lunatic leaders in the past, but none that can send a rocket nuke missiles over thousands of miles over the ocean into our country.

You clearly don't understand the gravity of this situation
Click to expand...

More could always have been done but look no further than the vehicles that moved the missiles onto the launch pad for a sign of what we were up against. Those vehicles were Chinese. I don't subscribe to the theory that Kim Jong Un is suicidal any more than Sadam Hussein was suicidal.



Do you have Alzheimer? That is your perspective. We've discussed this before. I asked you point blank and of course you gave the typical liberal answer.
Click to expand...

No, my stance has always been that we can investigate the background enough to warrant accepting them into our country. Nobody can guarantee that they won't commit a terrorist act but I can't guarantee that your son won't do the same. Simply because a crazed individual may sneak through the process does not warrant eliminating the process. As Crockett has pointed out many times, the risk to life and limb is MUCH greater for everyday activities like swimming and driving. I don't stop them due to the risk. In this case, the reward and obligation outweighs the risk, IMHO.
 
I35 said:
of course you gave the typical liberal answer
Click to expand...

Do you mean the default Liberal reactive response?

Kinda like the rapes and acid attacks rampaging Europe. Who'd have ever guessed it was a bad idea to allow mass migration of diametrically opposed religions and cultures?

Can anyone with a straight face still claim their assimilation into European culture is anything but a sick joke?

Too late to solve the problem proactive solutions could've easily prevented for monumentally less expense. Europe is beyond the point of no return where only civil war can solve that clusterf*** now.

Proactive facilitating of safe zones would've prevented all of it. But no, realizing true threats and facing reality is useless to today's left.

Forfeiting safety to seize power at all costs and choking off logic screaming otherwise rules the day. Loss of security equals demands for gov protection just like they planned.

Just be glad America woke the f up before we lost everything. Thankfully NK will be handled like the grave threat they are now becoming be a proactive patriot.
 
Last edited:
4th_floor said:
I didn't know Susan Rice was capable of telling the truth. Did she melt afterwards?
Click to expand...


Agree, but this applies to almost all of them
What other Dems have stepped forward with this same honest assessment about the Dems' previous deals with the NoKos?

I was having this discussion with a neighbor last night, over cigars, where we tried to name 10 nationally known Dems/libs who were honest.
We could not name 10 between the 2 of us. Barely got to 5.
 
Mike Huckabee's solution
Send Maxine Waters to NoKo
Kim Jong would kill himself after a half hour

DG9nqcSXcAEGmMt.jpg
 
Chicoms reportedly saying if NK nukes us first, they'll be "neutral". If we nuke NK first, they'll "stop us". That should remove any vestige of doubt that China is going to do anything to help.
 
Clean said:
Chicoms reportedly saying if NK nukes us first, they'll be "neutral". If we nuke NK first, they'll "stop us". That should remove any vestige of doubt that China is going to do anything to help.
Click to expand...
Translation: if you are dumb enough to launch an attack, you are on your own. If the US launches an attack first, we will help you.
 
Seattle Husker said:
This is why NK with stomp their feet but will not launch a nuke at us unless we attack first.
Click to expand...
You are giving soup bowl head credit for having a rational thought process........bad mistake.........kinda like Britain and France giving Adolph the same credit.......and look where it got them.
 
Seattle Husker said:
This is why NK with stomp their feet but will not launch a nuke at us unless we attack first.
Click to expand...

I guess what you are saying is you know personally what that lunatic leader named Kim Jong-un is thinking or would do. Very impressive if you are right. But I don't feel even just a little bit comfortable that the crazed leader would just only stomp his feet. Anybody around him that tries to speak up he will put in front of a firing squad. I honestly think he either will back off quietly if someone stands up to him because he's never been challenged. Or he tries to take out a US City because he thinks he's invincible and doesn't believe he has any consequences. In other words this guy is to nutty to predict.
 
Seattle Husker said:
I'm thinking about this rationally unlike this statement.
Click to expand...

Please explain? You don't think the lunatic is capable of trying to nuke a US city? You think he's thought out clearly what will happen if he did or that it might be impossible that he thinks he's untouchable. SH, maybe he's not the only crazy one.
 
I35 said:
Please explain? You don't think the lunatic is capable of trying to nuke a US city? You think he's thought out clearly what will happen if he did or that it might be impossible that he thinks he's untouchable. SH, maybe he's not the only crazy one.
Click to expand...

You claimed he thought he was invincible. The claim wasn't whether NK had the capability to nuke a US city but rather whether they'd use them pre-emptively. "Crazy" is not a deep and reasoned analysis of the behaviors at play.
 
^^^ If we do go to war with NK, I wonder whose side the Left And their lap dog, the MSM, will be on? Do they hate Trump so much they'll work against the U.S. war effort? Will we see Ashley Judd and Madonna over in Pyongyang, ala Jane Fonda?

We've already seen Jill Stein accusing Trump and the U.S. Of ratcheting up the rhetoric to provoke a war. Don Lemon made a comment about Trump "getting black troops killed" (I guess he doesn't care about non-black troops). I'm betting their globalist roots win out and they root for the underdog!
 
Clean said:
If we do go to war with NK, I wonder whose side the Left And their lap dog, the MSM, will be on? Do they hate Trump so much they'll work against the U.S. war effort? Will we see Ashley Judd and Madonna over in Pyongyang, ala Jane Fonda?
Click to expand...

They will be more subtle than that. Actively being supportive of Kim isn't a viable option, because he's indefensible and universally hated. What they'll do is find military and diplomatic critics who will claim that diplomacy could and likely would have avoided war. (Such critics always exist.) That will set up the "war of choice" narrative that was so effective in undermining the Iraq War effort. (Of course, it'll be done differently because Kim obviously does have WMDs.)

Once that narrative is established, the liberal anti-war people who were silent (or ignored) for 8 years will become vocal again. Furthermore, the latter-day Cindy Sheehans will come out of the woodwork, but there will be far more of them because Trump is a lot more polarizing than Bush was. Also, Trump will handle them differently. Bush was outwardly sympathetic to Sheehan but mostly avoided her. Trump will tell them to screw off and stop being so unpatriotic and dismiss them as raging partisans, and there will be truth to this as there was with Sheehan. However, the media will focus on how cold-hearted he was.

In other words, the coverage will be anti-Trump but not pro-Kim.
 
Clean said:
Will we see Ashley Judd and Madonna over in Pyongyang, ala Jane Fonda?
Click to expand...

Nope cuz Trump's NK travel ban will be in effect. All U.S. passports become invalid for travel to NK on 9/1. :thumbup:

Special validations may be granted for journalists and humanitarian workers, which those two hoochies certainly aren't. :smile1:

Aka the 'other' travel ban, this one was covered by MSM for two seconds before sprinting back to Russiagate.

The Libs didn't bother to complain about, protest, or file any lawsuits over this travel ban since protecting the rights of our own citizens to travel freely to any country that allows entry provides no benefit to their voting base. :smile1:

Example #5,759 of how the left doesn't give a flying f*ck about fighting for or protecting any rights if it can't help them keep or gain power.

Example #5,758: Majority of Cuban Americans (54%) vote for DT over HRC in Florida. Florida goes to DT and helps him becomes POTUS.

Less than two months later (Jan. 12) before DT takes office, Obama ends the decades-old 'wet foot, dry foot' policy protecting Cuban nationals once they enter the U.S.

"Effective immediately, Cuban nationals who attempt to enter the United States illegally and do not qualify for humanitarian relief will be subject to removal, consistent with U.S. law and enforcement priorities,” Obama said in a statement. “By taking this step, we are treating Cuban migrants the same way we treat migrants from other countries.”

If you didn't notice, that last line about removing illegal Cuban migrants because they are now treated like all other migrants is f'n priceless. Kinda like the sanctuary protected illegal Mexican migrants, Barry? :rolleyes1:
 
Last edited:
North Korea's objective is to obtain a nuclear program that serves as a deterrent against invasion.

The United States objective is that North Korea does not obtain nuclear capability, or that if they have obtained nuclear capability, that they dismantle or at least freeze it.

What choices does the US have?

1. Launch an attack. This would be insane for several reasons. First, South Korea would most likely suffer catastrophic losses. Second, China has promised to intervene if the US launches a pre-emptive strike. Both of these scenarios would bring about unacceptable results.

2. Wage economic war through sanctions. This merely delays the inevitable. North Korea eventually develops a mature nuclear program. At some point the sanctions may take a deep enough toll that North Korea either capitulates or launches a war in retaliation for the sanctions which would impoverish the country. North Korea isn't going to capitulate given the choice of capitulation and fighting.

3. Compromise. The US agrees to remove nukes from South Korea and end the annual war games where the US simulates attacks on North Korea and promises not to promote regime change. North Korea would then agree to freeze their nuclear program. The North Koreans actually proposed something like this in 2015 and Obama refused. China and Russia are promoting this again and urging talks, but the United States isn't considering talks until North Korea first ends the nuclear program. This isn't going to happen.

Option #1 is insane. Option #2 ends up in the same place as Option #1 a short time down the road. Option #3 is imperfect but the best available choice.

North Korea has submarines and is currently working on launch capability. Accuracy and range isn't as important once North Korea perfects this technology. A missile launched from the Pacific would merely have to detonate in space over North America to crash the power grid and basically bring the country to a halt.

No other country I'm aware of wishes to see North Korea have nukes, but only the United States sees North Korea as an imminent threat. Why do you suppose this is so? Could it be that the only country North Korea sees as a threat is the United States? And why is that? Could it be that the United States is the country that conducts war games on their borders and has established a pattern of overthrowing governments it disapproves of?

The US government sees itself as the "exceptional nation." Other countries are beginning to see the US as an exceptional nation also. Exceptional in the sense that the United States is the one country that is an existential threat to any government that does not subjugate itself.
 
Musburger1 said:
I've explained the alternatives. Which do you prefer?
Click to expand...
Definitely not the one that has already proven to be a massive failure - i.e. making a deal with NK. Putting pressure on China to reign in their psychopath is the best of the worst alternatives.
 
Today China ended imports from North Korea so it appears the sanctions approached will be tried. I predict Kim will continue testing because this is unacceptable to the North Koreans. So we end up with a fully nuclear North Korea and at some point they will ratchet up threats as the sanctions impoverish the country. We will arrive at the same place we are now except that the NK fire power will be greater. Why not negotiate now rather than wait for their nuclear strength to increase?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top