'We have the capability to do this, but it would be bad for reasons X and Y'

 

versus

 

'We will have no choice but to commit genocide and kick off yet another major refugee crisis'

 

 

Those are actually two very different things. Pretending that things are never actually different and that both sides are actually always equally bad/wrong is part of the reason why our politics is so broken. Obama (and Bush and Clinton before him) did not issue a threat that said we would have no choice but to commit genocide; Trump did. This wasn't a threat to take out Kim, or to destroy their nuclear capabilities or something like that, as bad as those options may be. It was a threat to "totally destroy" the country.

Edited September 20, 20178 yr by StrangeSox

Same with Nikki Haley. She is 100% complicit in this. If she thought Trump was an idiot and had to face palm during the UN speech, she should quit.

 

She won't. She has been just as vocal about this. They all want war, they love it. It's the whole party, not just Trump.

'We have the capability to do this, but it would be bad for reasons X and Y'

 

versus

 

'We will have no choice but to commit genocide and kick off yet another major refugee crisis'

 

 

Those are actually two very different things. Pretending that things are never actually different and that both sides are actually always equally bad/wrong is part of the reason why our politics is so broken. Obama (and Bush and Clinton before him) did not issue a threat that said we would have no choice but to commit genocide; Trump did.

 

Look at my original post, i'm clearly stating there's a difference in their delivery and audience. I'm not "pretending" anything.

 

You, meanwhile, continue to overstate that every non-democrat is the absolute worst at everything at all times in everything they ever say or do. THAT is a bigger reason why our system is broken. You jump to the extremes with this crap CONSTANTLY.

 

Yes, it's unique AND terrible that Trump did this in the manner in which he did it. The message itself, however, is nothing new. That's my point. For 30 years US Presidents have talked about using military force against North Korea. Implicit in that talk is the destruction of NK since that's the only end that could come of it and everyone knows it. Trump's more direct about it, but everything said by the past presidents have been threats. They're meant as threats and taken as threats.

Yeah, yeah, #itsdifferent.

 

Et tu Jenks?

 

Here is the summary of Obama's interview from when it happened:

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/president-obam...sea-aggression/

 

Notice the headline is "Obama on why the US wont 'destroy North Korea'"

 

Its clear from the context that Obama is just stating a fact, we could destroy NK, and then follows it up with, why we wont. There is no reasonable way to interpret that as a threat because he isnt addressing NK directly, just discussing the reality of the situation.

 

(edit)

 

It seems that you are backing off now and admitting that actually is "different" as now you are saying its "unique" which by definition means "different." If something is unique, it cant be the same.

Edited September 20, 20178 yr by Soxbadger

The message is something new, though. It's been obvious since the 50's that the US possessed the capability to totally destroy North Korea.

 

Pointing that out isn't the problem, here. The message that we may have "no choice" but to commit massive genocide is. That's not jumping to some sort of extreme. It's what the President of the United States said to the United Nations yesterday. There was no reason to believe past presidents would actually launch a preemptive nuclear attack on North Korea, and they clearly laid out the case why that would be bad. The annual military exercises with SK are a show of force and a way to make a military threat without promising genocide. Trump is doing the exact opposite and is trying to make the case that genocide will become necessary.

 

There's also something different between saying that military attacks are possible (though a very bad idea) and promising "total destruction" of a country. Do not gloss over what that statement means. That means many millions of people dead.

Edited September 20, 20178 yr by StrangeSox

Et tu Jenks?

 

Here is the summary of Obama's interview from when it happened:

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/president-obam...sea-aggression/

 

Notice the headline is "Obama on why the US wont 'destroy North Korea'"

 

Its clear from the context that Obama is just stating a fact, we could destroy NK, and then follows it up with, why we wont. There is no reasonable way to interpret that as a threat because he isnt addressing NK directly, just discussing the reality of the situation.

 

(edit)

 

It seems that you are backing off now and admitting that actually is "different" as now you are saying its "unique" which by definition means "different." If something is unique, it cant be the same.

 

It's unique because to my knowledge no one has said it at the UN.

No one had said that genocide of North Korea will become necessary, period.

Edited September 20, 20178 yr by StrangeSox

No one had said that genocide of North Korea will become necessary, period.

 

Again, any president in the past 15 years saying that military strikes are on the table is talking about the destruction of the regime in NK, and implicit in that is the whole country will be affected/destroyed.

 

"Genocide" is a nice bit of editorializing btw.

Again, any president in the past 15 years saying that military strikes are on the table is talking about the destruction of the regime in NK, and implicit in that is the whole country will be affected/destroyed.

 

"Genocide" is a nice bit of editorializing btw.

 

 

During the Korean war, we killed close to 30% of the North Korean population.

 

 

A war today could be worse.

Again, any president in the past 15 years saying that military strikes are on the table is talking about the destruction of the regime in NK, and implicit in that is the whole country will be affected/destroyed.

 

"Genocide" is a nice bit of editorializing btw.

 

What do you imagine "total destruction" of a country results in if not genocide?

 

gen·o·cide

ˈjenəˌsīd/Submit

noun

the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.

 

And again, you're missing a pretty important distinction between 'acknowledging the the US has a powerful military' and threatening that it will become necessary to commit genocide.

If NK hits a country with a weapon, well cross that bridge when we get there. But for all we know that could be the precipice for deescalation because at that point Kim will know an actual response has to happen.

 

It really shouldnt be about what some people think. This isnt High School, we dont have to prove that we can beat someone up. Words are meaningless.

I know but Kim said the same thing, that he'd destroy the USA. USA is just responding with the same rhetoric. Hopefully it won't happen. Once nuclear war begins like I said we won't be worrying about the Sox No. 1 draft pick. There will be no more sports once nuclear fallout hits, etc.

 

Greg, the words you think were nice to fight back with was a threat of genocide. A threat to kill 25 million people.

 

The President of the United States went to the United Nations for the first time and threatened to wipe out an entire country. Think about that next time before you praise someone for 'talking tough'

Kim did the same thing and there's no outrage? Look up his exact words about terror or whatever he said. I mean Kim is the one firing up missiles. If one is nuclear and there's an accident and it hits Japan, we're all f***ed. Like I said the time to really worry I guess is when Trump tells all Americans to get out of S. Korea and Japan. this isn't good, folks, none of it.Like I said before, Trump and Kim are both crazy enough to be the ones who start the end of the world as we know it. We've never had a loose cannon like Trump in there before. This is scary.

Edited September 20, 20178 yr by greg775

I know but Kim said the same thing, that he'd destroy the USA. USA is just responding with the same rhetoric. Hopefully it won't happen. Once nuclear war begins like I said we won't be worrying about the Sox No. 1 draft pick. There will be no more sports once nuclear fallout hits, etc.

 

 

Kim did the same thing and there's no outrage? Look up his exact words about terror or whatever he said. I mean Kim is the one firing up missiles. If one is nuclear and there's an accident and it hits Japan, we're all f***ed. Like I said the time to really worry I guess is when he tells all Americans to get out of S. Korea and Japan. this isn't good, folks, none of it.

 

No worries. KJU can't get past Kansas with his missiles anyway.

I know but Kim said the same thing, that he'd destroy the USA. USA is just responding with the same rhetoric. Hopefully it won't happen. Once nuclear war begins like I said we won't be worrying about the Sox No. 1 draft pick. There will be no more sports once nuclear fallout hits, etc.

 

 

Kim is the weaker party, he is the one who has to threaten. The US is the strongest country on the planet, there is no need to threaten. Everyone already knows we can wipe NK off the planet, what is the point in repeating it? After the first warning/threat, its meaningless.

 

Watch how it becomes weaker each time:

 

Dont do this or Ill do X

 

I swear if you do it again, Ill do X.

 

I really really mean it if you do it again, Ill do X.

 

One threat is enough, if you make a threat you have to be willing to act on it or it completely loses its value.

No worries. KJU can't get past Kansas with his missiles anyway.

Well, I'm sure the nuclear fallout would affect everybody. The water would be contaminated, etc. I'd think if Chicago got a direct hit, Kansas would be affected almost immediately. One thing about nukes. There won't be any protests once they hit land. We'll all be too busy looking for underground vaults to live in to worry about protesting. Also like I said, there will be no more sports to talk about. It's amazing how it's probably all rhetoric, but we actually have 2 leaders discussing total destruction.

 

Kim is the weaker party, he is the one who has to threaten. The US is the strongest country on the planet, there is no need to threaten. Everyone already knows we can wipe NK off the planet, what is the point in repeating it? After the first warning/threat, its meaningless.

 

Watch how it becomes weaker each time:

 

Dont do this or Ill do X

 

I swear if you do it again, Ill do X.

 

I really really mean it if you do it again, Ill do X.

 

One threat is enough, if you make a threat you have to be willing to act on it or it completely loses its value.

Makes sense. I am hoping you guys who aren't too worried about all this are correct. Like I said, there are no 'do-overs' once the nukes are launched. Too late.

I know but Kim said the same thing, that he'd destroy the USA. USA is just responding with the same rhetoric. Hopefully it won't happen. Once nuclear war begins like I said we won't be worrying about the Sox No. 1 draft pick. There will be no more sports once nuclear fallout hits, etc.

 

 

Kim did the same thing and there's no outrage? Look up his exact words about terror or whatever he said. I mean Kim is the one firing up missiles. If one is nuclear and there's an accident and it hits Japan, we're all f***ed. Like I said the time to really worry I guess is when Trump tells all Americans to get out of S. Korea and Japan. this isn't good, folks, none of it.Like I said before, Trump and Kim are both crazy enough to be the ones who start the end of the world as we know it. We've never had a loose cannon like Trump in there before. This is scary.

Then we should receive the same economic sanctions as a rogue state threatening war that have been given to North Korea.

StrangeSox/GoSox,

 

I'm not going to defend Trump here because he's in the wrong, but what actions would you take if you were the President and North Korea started launching nukes our way?

Edited September 20, 20178 yr by Chicago White Sox

StrangeSox/GoSox,

 

I'm not going to defend Trump here because he's in the wrong, but what actions would you take if you were the President and North Korea started launching nukes our way?

Depending on what is meant by "our way", obviously you vaporize the entire country before they are able to launch any more. This is a nuclear holocaust scenario you've set up. The only way to win is not to play.

That's a solid response. There's zero winning in the scenario. You take out every possible bit of additional offense they have once a launch is detected and verified as quickly as you can.

 

There's no reason to commit genocide by nuking Pyongyang or something, though.

During the Korean war, we killed close to 30% of the North Korean population.

 

 

A war today could be worse.

 

Well yeah, this isn't the 1950s anymore. There will be no "war" with North Korea and that has been true for years. If they really attack anyone, they are gone off the map. End of story, no matter who is in charge, Obama, Trump, or The Rock.

 

That's the main reason they haven't attacked anyone, just acted tough.

Well yeah, this isn't the 1950s anymore. There will be no "war" with North Korea and that has been true for years. If they really attack anyone, they are gone off the map. End of story, no matter who is in charge, Obama, Trump, or The Rock.

 

That's the main reason they haven't attacked anyone, just acted tough.

Thing is, they are gone off the map, but they can take a lot of people with them. If they decide to bomb us, you better believe they will also send some nukes South Korea's way and we won't be able to deflect those nukes. So how do we blow North Korea off the map and at the same time make sure they don't blow up South Korea, Japan and Hawaii? If all those places are demolished with no survivors and there's nuclear fallout all over the world, that's bad.

Edited September 21, 20178 yr by greg775

South Park this week hit the nail right on the head with some of the reactions in this thread. (Rhyme not intended.)

Edited September 21, 20178 yr by Soxbadger

Well yeah, this isn't the 1950s anymore. There will be no "war" with North Korea and that has been true for years. If they really attack anyone, they are gone off the map. End of story, no matter who is in charge, Obama, Trump, or The Rock.

 

That's the main reason they haven't attacked anyone, just acted tough.

 

 

Just like there would be no "war" with Iraq. 15 years later....

 

 

Your right, it's not the 1950's anymore. North Korea is not some small country in the middle of a revolution. They are a militarized country. It would be a lengthy and bloody war. It would end up costing the lives of possibly millions of people.

 

 

Why do we always say if "North Korea attacks anyone". They never have. They have never bombed another nation.

 

We have. We are currently bombing 7 different countries. Maybe we are the one's other countries worry about.

Hawaii preparing for nuclear attack. Hmmm ... clickbait, fake news or are the end times a coming?

 

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/a...-by-north-korea

Hawaii preparing for nuclear attack. Hmmm ... clickbait, fake news or are the end times a coming?

 

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/a...-by-north-korea

 

Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.

 

Watch South Park from last night Greg, itll give you a good perspective.

Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.

 

Watch South Park from last night Greg, itll give you a good perspective.

OK. Let me know if u find a replay link.