StrangeSox

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 06:44 PM) Maybe it's more instructive to go through this entire list and note the unqualified success stories. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...n_regime_change Or attempted foreign assassinations since World War Two. https://wikispooks.com/wiki/US/Foreign_Assa...ions_since_1945 bin Laden in Pakistan, Chile (Pinochet), Zaire (Lumumba), Cuba (Castro), Iraq (multiple), Iran and Korea (Kim Koo, opposition leader, 1949) The US helped install Pinochet and backed his brutal regime.

I'd also still like to know what complaints about Kim being dangerously detached from reality and with an enormous and fragile ego (which are true) don't also apply to Trump, a man with unilateral and unquestionable control of thousands of nuclear weapons and the largest military on Earth. That's not the duo anyone should want to be playing nuclear brinkmanship with. That can escalate very, very quickly with nobody competent or capable around to deescalate.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 06:38 PM) NK is a much bigger threat to our ally, South Korea than they are to us. Much, much bigger threat. Would you advocate unilaterally starting war with North Korea today, even if South Korea doesn't want that war? Also Japan, and China doesn't want the massive refugee crisis that would be kicked off.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 06:36 PM) Dude, the intervention that you seem to want (but won't come out and say you want), is literally the sure fire way to cause hundreds of thousands of deaths of non-white people. Unless you are making a humanitarian point about suffering within North Korea, the bolded sentence makes absolutely no sense. EDIT to fix typo. That's the concern troll. If you don't support bombing X country that brutalizes it's population, then you support them or Don't care about deaths there. Same bulls*** leveled at people who opposed intervention in Libya or Syria, opposed invading Iraq, opposed long term occupation of Afghanistan, etc.

Ss2k5 what other countries do you recommend the US invade to depose corrupt regimes? How has that worked out historically? Syria is a humanitarian mess that's turned into a global problem. Libya is a disaster. Iran isn't exactly peachy. Pakistan had major regional issues and they have nuclear weapons too. Plenty of brutal dictators in the former Soviet republics. Turkey is quickly descending into authoritarianism. Venezuela too. The Philippines have widespread extra judicial killings and a leader who compared himself favorable to Hitler. There's reports of genocide in the Central African Republic. Yemen has an awful civil war. Somalia is still a mess. Which of these countries among many others do you also recommended the US take military action against? If not, why don't you care about these non white deaths?

The UN just unanimously approved new sanctions on North Korea yesterday including China. I don't think they'll ultimately be successful, but the world already is doing something. Hopefully I'm wing. Too many people think the only way to do something is to drop bombs.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 06:24 PM) Look I know the most important thing here is the partisan talking points, and how to blame Bush for this. It isn't the millions of people who have already lost their lives, nor is it the millions who are going to lose their lives, and it definitely isn't a guy with nuclear technology who is threatening to nuke Guam and the rest of the USA. We have been appeasing NK for 50 years now and it has worked impressively well. If you don't count the millions of dead non-white people, really this is fine. Do we really need to throw a list of failed us foreign intervention out there? This country doesn't have anything approaching a good track record on that regard. We're still suck in two middle East forever wars based on the exact same rhetoric you ate up then and are pushing now. Blowing up countries and initiating regime change by and large costs far more lives. Don't try that "you don't care about non white deaths" concern trolling when you're the one avocating that the US kick off the death of hundreds of thousands because North Korea is now a threat to this country. They also didn't threaten to nuke Guam. Get your fear mongering war cheerleading straight.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 06:26 PM) There may not be an easy solution, but that doesn't mean you ignore a problem until it becomes an even greater problem. I get what's at stake in South Korea and the broader region, but this issue is quickly spiraling out of control. We're approaching a breaking point and we can't be afraid to take action anymore because of the likelihood of casualties. At this point, we need to figure out what course of action will likely lead to the least amount of loss and act accordingly. I wish we had a different leader in place to help make that decision, but unfortunately this is the hand we're stuck with. The time for action is now. North Korea is a much greater threat to it's immediate region than they are to the US. Are those countries eager to sacrifice themselves in an attempted attack? Are they clamoring for immediate military action?

A good reminder of why we should be skeptical about claims of threats to the US, too. Many people enthusiastically supported the Iraq war based on lies about threats to the US. http://edition.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/08/iraq.debate/

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 06:13 PM) Didn't know it was my duty to come up with the solution. Isn't that the government & military's job? What I can tell you is that allowing North Korea to expand their nuclear capabilities and become a direct threat to the US is a serious f***ing problem. Therefore, taking no action is clearly not the answer. Trying to find diplomatic solutions is not taking no action. They are not guaranteed to work, but then again neither is a military strike, invasion, or a coup. But taking direct military action is going to result in hundreds of thousands of dead people. I want people avocating that the US "do something" to at least acknowledge that.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 06:17 PM) Lol...could Iraq nuke the US back in 2002? That was what the administration, the media, and most of the Congress was insisting. We had to stop Saddam before we woke up to nuclear clouds.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 06:04 PM) I am embarrassed to call myself a democrat after reading some of the responses in this thread. Yup, let's just continue to do nothing until a madman has the ability to wipe out millions of Americans in a blink of an eye. That seems like the obvious solution... Is this a 2002 post about Iraq

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 05:58 PM) Annex? lmao. Yeah, that is what this is about. They are just talking about nuking people meanwhile spending decades developing a bomb. This is fine. Germany was annexing neighboring countries. That's what the whole appeasement was about. North Korea has not shown any interest in wanting to go on the offensive as Germany did, which is where your attempted analogy falls apart. North Korea seems to want the bomb as a defensive measure. That's not fine. No one is saying it's fine. Nuclear proliferation is categorically bad. But they're not Nazi Germany. That's not the risk here, even if the risk is still substantial. I guess what is frustrating is that you've yet to acknowledge that preemptive force is definitely going to cost many, many lives.

Gorka is an Hungarian Nazi with a fake PhD. At least he doesn't have a security clearance so he's largely limited to saying awful things on TV

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 05:38 PM) Did we offer them the Rhineland yet? North Korea isn't Nazi Germany, and not every situation can only be solved by military force. North Korea is not threatening to annex their neighboring countries, they don't have the military capabilities to do so, and any direct first strike action by them would result in their own annihilation. The analogy just doesn't hold, and finding possible diplomatic solutions is vastly preferable to yet more war and mass death. How well have the last few wars you've supported gone? What do you think should be done? What price are you willing to pay? If you're going to complain about "appeasement," why can't you just come out and say what you think should be done?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 05:36 PM) This is fine. What do you think should be done? What is the cost you're willing to pay?

What is the argument against Kim having nuclear weapons that doesn't apply to Trump, a man who has questioned on multiple times why we don't use them more freely? Imagine Trump being in charge during the Cuban missile crisis. Imagine him responding to 9/11.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 05:12 PM) Because the competent state department the last 8 years did so much to solve this problem? Rhetoric and threats on both sides have ramped up under Trump.

World apology tour are you seriously still going to try to go with that one

It's a shame we have a barely-functional State department run by a clueless oil executive, could really use a solidly staffed diplomatic agency right now

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 03:21 PM) There is no good solution to this. This is a weak man, who wants to be noticed and will do anything to do it. He has brainwashed his people and been brainwashed by his father/grandfather. They are crying out to be noticed. The problem with that is...if you don't pay attention, then you never know what they are going to do. You can't elevate him to the position in the world where he thinks he is, for many reasons, but you also can't ignore him. Wasn't sure if this is about Kim or Trump to be honest

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 03:16 PM) So, that's not actually a finalized draft as far as everything I've read, there are still comments included, it's been circulated widely, and the final draft wasn't supposed to be available until August 18. The results are going to look a lot like that though. The reporting that I've heard is that the Trump admin has essentially been sitting on the report for a bit and there's been no commitment to publicly release it at all. They're already doing what they can to punish climate scientists, run them out of government, and scrub government resources and databases of even acknowledging the existence of the problem.

The Times has now obtained the final draft of the climate report awaiting approval by the Trump administration We're boned.

QUOTE (Tex @ Aug 7, 2017 -> 12:08 PM) Don't forget there are pressures from within the community that profit by new stuff getting built. They contribute to campaigns and know how to influence getting stuff they want. An Olympics is a great excuse to spread a little public money into the hands of key supporters under the Olympic rings. IIRC part of the plan is to use the brand new stadium they're building for the Rams

Who would even get excited about Tebow anyway? He hasn't played in the NFL in 5 years and his popularity peaked 7 or 8 years ago.