Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Aug 9, 2017 -> 10:57 AM) What should the US have done in that situation? Not sure, but bmag's claim that force would be met with force when it comes to NK isn't true. They hold the trump card and they know it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 9, 2017 -> 10:57 AM) Not exactly a clear-cut case and it wouldn't be the first time the US seriously misattributed the sinking of a ship. Sweden, Australia and Britain were in on the fix too?

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 9, 2017 -> 10:28 AM) But I would argue that IS happening. And the potential of a true threat is low, because actual aggression will be met with force. So they rattle, they get reminded (see UN) that it is still unacceptable to be aggressive. If they actually attack or perform a land grab, they know they can't win. They've attacked SK recently in 2010, killing 46 people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROKS_Cheonan_sinking And we/the international community didn't respond, or couldn't, because we/the international community allowed them to develop the bomb.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 9, 2017 -> 08:58 AM) How many other US foreign interventions have gone well? how'd the last one in Korea go? (it's still going on, technically!) Germany and Japan worked out pretty well. We've been less successful since. Doesn't mean we can't be successful here.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Aug 9, 2017 -> 08:56 AM) And what exactly should Obama have done then instead??? By the time Obama took office in 2009, the North Koreans had already conducted their first nuclear test, and two nuclear agreements had already collapsed amid mutual accusations of cheating. But Obama quickly reached out to North Korea in hopes of resuming talks. Pyongyang’s response: a second nuclear test.Obama then adopted a hard-line approach that essentially echoes the stringent policies of President George W. Bush. Obama refused to engage in direct talks with Pyongyang until the regime first demonstrated it was willing to give up its nukes. In the meantime, the U.S. tightened sanctions against North Korea, believing the poor, isolated country would eventually collapse or agree to denuclearize.Two years later, famine forced Pyongyang back to the negotiating table. In early 2012, Obama and Kim reached an agreement that required the North to freeze its nuclear and ballistic missile programs in return for 240,000 tons of U.S. food aid. But soon afterward, that deal fell apart when Pyongyang fired a missile to launch a satellite. In 2013, North Korea conducted its third nuclear test. Newsweek.com/Ed Perry Clearly he should have tried the diplomatic approach! Again, just proving my point that talks with NK are fruitless, as they have been for decades.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Aug 9, 2017 -> 08:52 AM) It's not BS, the Clinton agreed framework was a good idea, much like Obama's Iran nuclear deal. Republicans just hated it and did everything they could to torpedo it, just like the Iran deal. Clinton's would have been a good deal IF he required that NK dismantle it's nuclear program. Look, again, i'm not claiming that any US policy over the last few decades has worked. They've clearly all failed.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Aug 9, 2017 -> 08:50 AM) So whats your plan? Turn Rodman into a double agent.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 9, 2017 -> 08:42 AM) Explain to me how/why foreign invasion and occupation will work this time, when the same moves have failed across the globe over the last 25+ decades. NK wants military progression so that they have an ability to tell the rest of the world to f*** off. And I still haven't seen any arguments as to why Kim is any less rational than Trump. Well, first, you don't have the religious/cultural problems you have in Iraq with three different groups hating each other. So I think this rebuild would be vastly different. I'm not under any illusion that it would be easy. It would obviously be difficult and a huge challenge but the positives outweigh the negatives.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 9, 2017 -> 08:40 AM) In the late 90's, Clinton set up a framework for talks and negotiations with NK. Bush kicked the legs out from under that with his "Axis of Evil" speech, and both sides seriously disengaged from constructive conversations as a result. Obama kinda sorta tried to restart some efforts but they weren't a priority and it wasn't enough. Nobody but a bunch of scared people in the US wants to strike NK, so talking about military options right now does mean you're talking about unilateral strikes. Strikes that will get a lot of our allies in SK killed, strikes that will kill many more NK's, and strikes that will greatly piss off China and will end the 64 year armistice and restart the war that has never technically ended. We have two unhinged egomaniacs threatening each other with nuclear weapons. Every effort right now should be on massive de-escalation, not "well actually maybe this military strike won't end in a total boondoggle" talk. Bulls***. Bush got NK to the table with the regional players for 5 years worth of talks, culminating in NK agreeing to halt its nuclear weapons program and shut down their facilities and normalize relations with Japan and the US. And it was Obama who ruined the agreement by condemning their "satellite" launch in 2009. I know you can't blame Obama for anything, so fine, we'll call it NK reneging on their agreement, something they continue to do because they have no desire whatsoever to end their military progression. But keep dreaming guys. Maybe this time it'll work!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 9, 2017 -> 08:35 AM) How many people currently advocating for mass death on the Korean peninsula also enthusiastically supported invading Iraq because Saddam was a Bad Man who was looking for yellow cake and aluminum tubes to definitely build nuclear bombs to attack the US or sell to fundamentalist Islamic groups? Apples to oranges. The world has seen the progression of NK's tech. We've been tracking it and they've been boasting about it.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Aug 9, 2017 -> 08:34 AM) My solution is to open diplomatic relations with another country. Work out a peace agreement. This idea that American has had an "anti-war policy" towards NK is totally wrong. I guess it's not as sexy as starting a war that will result in the death of millions of Koreans, but hey let's just do the normal conservative foreign policy dance. The one that has never worked and has always resulted in mass death and destruction around the world. I guess I'm just an appeaser. Explain to me how/why diplomatic relations will work this time, when the same moves have failed over the last 2 decades. You're tying to use rational means on an irrational regime. They don't want war, but they don't to stop their military progression either.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 9, 2017 -> 08:26 AM) Diplomatic solutions to problems actually have some record of success in the world. Maybe it works this time, maybe it doesn't. Diplomatic solutions won't get rid of NK's nuclear capabilities, but *maybe* they could stop their ability to project those weapons regionally or globally. It's certainly not a guarantee. The track record for foreign military interventions or targeted assassinations or backing coups is far, far worse than diplomatic approaches. SK, China, Japan, and Russia, the countries that are actually most likely to have to deal with NK's bulls*** whether it's unlikely first-strike actions or post-US strike humanitarian crises, are not on board. Perhaps that should be an indication, especially SK's and Japan's stances, that rushing into yet another foreign military adventure is not the smartest move. Does SK actually want unification and the massive problem of now having to take care of NK's population? I'm fairly certain China wants a buffer. The broader point about the State Department being non-functional at this point is that there are lot of negotiations and discussions that normally would happen between administrators, diplomats and foreign service workers in the background. Instead we're getting two highly unstable and incompetent morons shouting at each other in increasingly unhinged public statements. A competent, professionally staffed State Department *might* be able to work to diffuse Trump's idiocy, but unfortunately the oilman in charge is also an incompetent idiot so that's one less major avenue of addressing this problem. 1) It's too late. They have the tech to attack regionally. You have to hope they don't get ICBM tech down, but they've rapidly accelerated that tech, more than we thought, during the 8 years of the type of foreign policy you've been advocating. 2) What did we do in the late 90's and from 2003-2007? Did those diplomatic moves work? Did it stop anything? Great, it slowed them down by a year here or a year there. That's just kicking the can down the road. Again, the same policy you're advocating. I'm not suggesting that we preemptively strike NK by ourselves. I'm just fighting back from this notion that military option isn't a legitimate option, despite the high cost. It's not the first choice, but we shouldn't just sit back and keep saying "well maybe if we try the diplomatic solution first" for the next 2 decades like we have the last 2 decades. We may as well hand the keys to Rodman and see what he can do to resolve the problem.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Aug 9, 2017 -> 08:24 AM) I'm not ok with any country having a nuclear bomb. Especially not the U.S.A, because you know we are the only country to actually use one and have come close to using more. I don't have any more problem with NK having a nuclear bomb than any other country. If that's your position then there's no point debating anything with you. Your solution is do nothing, they can do whatever they want.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Aug 9, 2017 -> 08:17 AM) I don't care that regime changes have failed every time before. It's going to work this time I tell ya! I'm starting to get the impression that people have little knowledge on the history of the situation with North Korea, starting with the war and what's been done through the years or they just don't care and are excited about another war. Yes or no: you're OK with NK having a nuclear bomb capable of hitting LA. edit: that can either be used by NK (less likely) or sold to some rogue group/nation (more likely)

QUOTE (knightni @ Aug 9, 2017 -> 07:11 AM) So, the logic is, if competency couldn't fix it, then incompetency will? I stated at the very beginning that Trump is not the person to fix this problem. But why is the "answer" a competent, anti-war US policy when that policy has also failed? And arguably, failed WORSE given that the development of their weapons program accelerated during the time period when we were playing "nice." Balta and SS' point is basically - military intervention isn't an option because many people will die and rhetoric threatening military action doesn't work either. And my counter is nothing else has worked! Balta annoyingly chastised people for not coming up with better solutions, and yet his solution is appeasement and giving a mad man exactly what he wants, under the false belief that it will do something. They've been given aid in the past and failed to uphold their end of the deal. Why would it work this time? SS2k5 is right; the cat's out of the bag here because of failed US policy over many decades. We should have ousted that regime in the 90's (or even the 80's). I don't care about a failed rebuild in other places, it's still a possibility here. Unification of the Korean peninsula is what basically everyone wants EXCEPT the tyrannical, brain-washing regime currently in place in NK. So yes, despite the horrific cost, military options should be on the table. SK, China, Japan and Russia, along with the UN, should be on board.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 05:05 PM) 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 Because the competent state department the last 8 years did so much to solve this problem?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 04:50 PM) 1. Why is it so much worse if they have a nuclear weapon that can hit the US as opposed to vaporizing Seoul or Tokyo? They've been able to do that to Seoul for decades. Because I'm a citizen of this country and unlike many I value our country more than others. Our allies also need protection, and people of the world generally need protection, but a direct attack on US soil or of US interests is a more direct cause for concern. But you again misunderstand my point - this is a general failure of US diplomacy over many decades that's not party specific or rhetoric specific. Right, and advancement of those weapons and the delivery of those weapons continued despite Obama's world apology tour. So i'm not sure what you're arguing. Tough talk is pointless but the alternative is what? I'm telling you it's also pointless, as proven by the continued advancement of their technology. So you have no solution. Thanks for the input.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 04:41 PM) Even at the time, they had guns pointed at Seoul, so threatening them was already stupid. Remember how Obama said that using Chemical Weapons in Syria was a red line then it turned out to not be a red line? That's been our strategy with North Korea since 2001 - "all options are on the table!" we insist, "we can't wait any more" we insist, but no one has any other ideas what we can do. So we make empty threats and then expect a country run by an egomaniac not to respond. They're not going to give up the bomb now that they have it. So either we are going to vaporize them and kill most of the inhabitants of South Korea in the process, or every little bit of tough talk in this thread about how bad "appeasement" is, every word of it is bullplop. Now our leader has issued a threat to nuke them if they threaten again. It's either going to be nuclear war launched by a madman or it's yet another empty threat, but at least people feel tough. Um, haven't there been several options thrown out there in this thread full of non-experts? Pressuring China, assassination, inciting an internal revolt...

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 04:23 PM) Wasn't the point re: GWB about the problem with rhetoric that pushes war (see the Axis of Evil comments) when you don't have the capacity to actually push that threat? The rhetoric pushes the other side away from the table and further isolates them. The rhetoric removes diplomacy as an option. I don't know enough to speak to the validity of that argument, but that certainly distinguishes both GWB and Trump's approach to North Korea (to differing degrees) from Clinton and Obama's approaches (unless I'm just missing saber rattling quotes from either of those two). My point is rhetoric doesn't matter - under Clinton or Obama, did NK continue it's nuclear weapons program? Did they continue to make bombs and test them? Did they continue to work on delivery systems? Yes, yes and yes. Their first nuclear bomb test was in 2006 under Bush. Their 2nd was in 2009, third in 2012, fourth and fifth in 2016, all under Obama. Clearly Obama's laid back, anti-war rhetoric halted their research/testing. And in fact, just looking at the wiki article, I forgot that from 2003-2007 the Bush presidency had six-party talks with NK and for a time they (allegedly) stopped their weapons program. So while Bush started out his Presidency calling them one of the Axis of Evil, by the end he was still trying a diplomatic approach and that still failed. End of the day, NK is just playing the world. No one is going to stop them unless military options are on the table and no one is willing to do that, so this will just gradually progress until they have a nuke capable of hitting the US and Western Europe. What incentive do they have to stop? None. What do they have to gain? Insane leverage.

I like how that person first cites this as a problem that's been in existence since Clinton, and then blames Bush, ignores Obama's 8 years of failure, and then concludes with concern for Trump. I also like how he blames Trump for the US having faulty intelligence about the sophistication of their ICBM program....as if they accelerated the program only in the last 6 months of Trump being in office. edit: I mean, don't get me wrong, Trump is a disaster and has been a disaster with NK (and everything else), but to pretend like this is some Republican-only issue, or even a recent issue, ignores history.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 12:57 PM) He's power happy. If you invade, he'll start pressing buttons. He won't care if his country turns into a parking lot. If he isn't in charge, no one should be. If you just wait for something awful to happen, then something awful is going to happen, and you turn his country into a parking lot. I say, save lives. End his. But apparently that isn't an option. I watched a 60 Minutes piece a few months ago and they were speaking with a US commander in South Korea by the border. He said they had a clear shot at him a few days prior but that wasn't the plan. The humanitarian effort would be insane. The NK people need help but they've been brainwashed for decades. They would probably resist those efforts. They have no concept of what's going on in the real world. SK would have to take the lead, and who knows if they want to. China would be pissed. Russia would be pissed. The leftovers of his regime would be pissed. I'm sure they have a contingency plan in place if he's killed. Starting a coup from the inside would be the best route, but I don't know how you would even begin to go about that.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 12:34 PM) I think the best option is to take him out. Didn't we just go through 10-15 years of being told what a terrible policy that is?

QUOTE (Quin @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 12:10 PM) Even NK isn't crazy enough to actually launch a nuclear warhead at the U.S. They would be wiped off the map within minutes. It's a nuclear deterrent. The concern is the sale of that weapon/tech to a group like ISIS (or the next group to take over from ISIS), not a strike from NK directly.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Aug 7, 2017 -> 02:47 PM) LF's Stark-Lannister s*** stirring happened before Bran's fall. He persuaded Lysa Arryn to poison Ned's mentor Jon Arryn, and write a letter to Cat Stark blaming it on the Lannisters. Good point, I forgot about that.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Aug 7, 2017 -> 02:13 PM) Have you actually watched the show? Don't you remember when Littlefinger betrayed Ned via the fake coup? He basically got Ned killed. Maybe you're confusing him with Renly, who Ned didn't listen to. Regardless, Littlefinger is a bad, bad dude. There is no gray with him other than his love/obsession for Catelyn & Sansa. I think you're taking your contrarian role a bit too far here. My point here is it's been a long time since we've seen that. Unlike the other "bad" guys in the show - Cersei, Jaime, Euron - he hasn't done anything recently that would really make his death impactful. His role has been relegated ever since he left the Vale. If the plan is to eventually have Arya or Sansa get some revenge, they need to build him back up again. 1-2 sentences every few episodes isn't really enough.