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.

But when you look past all the political bulls***, do you really think they were as big of a threat to the US as North Korea is today or will be soon?

But when you look past all the political bulls***, do you really think they were as big of a threat to the US as North Korea is today or will be soon?

No.

 

But they are also not nearly as big of a threat as the Soviet Union was either and we managed that and talked to them and negotiated with them.

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.

 

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.

Edited August 8, 20178 yr by illinilaw08

But when you look past all the political bulls***, do you really think they were as big of a threat to the US as North Korea is today or will be soon?

 

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?

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?

Edited August 8, 20178 yr by StrangeSox

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 depart 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?

 

 

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)

Edited August 8, 20178 yr by caulfield12

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

One of the strongest arguments that the US "doesn't care about non-white genocide" was the pullout from Somalia after the Black Hawk Down incident and the related nearly worldwide refusal to do anything about Rwanda...versus American policy with the former Yugoslavia, a "European/White" country.

 

And yes, millions of South Koreans in the Incheon/Seoul area would immediately be under threat of annihilation from nuclear or conventional, chemical/biological weapons. Seoul is one of the biggest cities in the world, and right across the DMZ.

 

Of course, now we're talking one of our key allies, the history dating back generations and the fact that the US is (supposedly) in "clear and present danger" from Kim Jong Eun and Trump's own decision-making. He's desperate for a military engagement to get the focus off the Russian investigation.

Edited August 9, 20178 yr by caulfield12

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?

I already acknowledged the threat to South Korea. But that doesn't mean we can sit idly while a madman gets the nuclear capabilities to attack the mainland US. Tough problems oftentimes require tough solutions. Being passive for years and years and years is exactly what's gotten us into this mess in the first place. Again, I don't have the answer (cue Balta's lame 50 push-up comment), but there is a solution out there that is better than inaction and that doesn't necessarily mean invading and/or nuking North Korea. But I can promise you this, sanctions are simply putting a bandaid on a gunshot wound. More drastic measures must be taken if we actually want to eliminate a serious threat to the US.

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.

 

The only hope is Mattis, McMaster, Kelly, Dunford, etc., pull him back from the precipice.

 

If JFK went with NSC advice instead of his brother during the Cuban Missile Crisis, World War Three would likely have broken out...as well as having to guess correctly which Khrushchev cable was actually from him, was there a coup underway in Russia, etc.

 

Trump is the opposite of cool headed, as his rhetoric today once again demonstrates. He's itching to provoke a first response from North Korea to give him the moral high ground to do something with all those high tech toys the US military has spent hundreds of billions of dollars on over time.

I already acknowledged the threat to South Korea. But that doesn't mean we can sit idly while a madman gets the nuclear capabilities to attack the mainland US. Tough problems oftentimes require tough solutions. Being passive for years and years and years is exactly what's gotten us into this mess in the first place. Again, I don't have the answer (cue Balta's lame 50 push-up comment), but there is a solution out there that is better than inaction and that doesn't necessarily mean invading and/or nuking North Korea. But I can promise you this, sanctions are simply putting a bandaid on a gunshot wound. More drastic measures must be taken if we actually want to eliminate a serious threat to the US.

 

This sounds like something King George II's government might have argued about the disloyal American colonists in the early 1770's.

 

Moral high ground depends entirely on one's perspective.

 

Maybe Trump should take Jon Snow's advice to Danaerys Targaryen and do the exact opposite of whatever his instincts are telling him?

Edited August 9, 20178 yr by caulfield12

I already acknowledged the threat to South Korea. But that doesn't mean we can sit idly while a madman gets the nuclear capabilities to attack the mainland US. Tough problems oftentimes require tough solutions. Being passive for years and years and years is exactly what's gotten us into this mess in the first place. Again, I don't have the answer (cue Balta's lame 50 push-up comment), but there is a solution out there that is better than inaction and that doesn't necessarily mean invading and/or nuking North Korea. But I can promise you this, sanctions are simply putting a bandaid on a gunshot wound. More drastic measures must be taken if we actually want to eliminate a serious threat to the US.

Nope. Negotiations where they keep their weapons but behave slightly better, or just do what we're doing right now. Anything else is fantasy.

 

I have to admit, Jenks's line about how we could magically assassinate their leader without any blowback or just hope that suddenly their population will decide to revolt against a several million person strong army (most of them have served in it btw) is still a useful comment. It shows how truly futile all these are. They're Hollywood imagination at its weakest. And that's still better than the "do something but I don't know what!" statements.

 

So yeah, 50 pushups.

The only hope is Mattis, McMaster, Kelly, Dunford, etc., pull him back from the precipice.

 

If JFK went with NSC advice instead of his brother during the Cuban Missile Crisis, World War Three would likely have broken out...as well as having to guess correctly which Khrushchev cable was actually from him, was there a coup underway in Russia, etc.

 

Trump is the opposite of cool headed, as his rhetoric today once again demonstrates. He's itching to provoke a first response from North Korea to give him the moral high ground to do something with all those high tech toys the US military has spent hundreds of billions of dollars on over time.

 

All of the generals he's surrounded himself with in what should be civilian positions are pushing for ramped up war elsewhere. They will not be a check on Trump, and Trump still retains the sole power to order a nuclear strike. The only way to stop such an order would be for an immediate coup to occur.

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.

 

The same people who are OK with millions of deaths so far are worried about hundreds of thousands... A troll is a good way to put it. Funny how that works.

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?

 

Offer them fuel oil and grains? That worked pretty well, right?

North Korea has zero interest in a nuclear first strike against the United States. They want that capability so that both China and the ya play nice with them, and they're dead set on getting it. They're very different from Iran in that regard.

 

If that goal is truly non negotiable for them, and that appears to be the case, the only possible solution is large scale military action likely resulting in mass death, a huge humanitarian and refugee crisis, and long term occupation. If the US unilaterally struck first with nuclear weapons, we're also probably looking at international sanctions and the world economy collapsing rapidly as a result. Conceivably military strikes probably not that drastic, but if it's unilateral it will be orders of magnitude worse than Iraq has been.

The same people who are OK with millions of deaths so far are worried about hundreds of thousands... A troll is a good way to put it. Funny how that works.

100 pushups.

Offer them fuel oil and grains? That worked pretty well, right?

150 pushups.

The same people who are OK with millions of deaths so far are worried about hundreds of thousands... A troll is a good way to put it. Funny how that works.

 

Bombing North Korea will not end well for North Koreans. You can't seem to acknowledge any of the negative effects of the thing you're advocating.

And we're all assuming China will just sit idly by while all this is taking place on their border?

 

 

The news story that the Chinese Communist Party leader Xi Jinping underscored China's "blood alliance" with North Korea in his meeting with President Moon Jae-in is still generating a flurry of speculation in the public sphere. Whether Xi really used the particular word at the G-20 summit is one thing, but what is more important is whether Pyongyang and Beijing can be still defined as allies in this 21st century? And from an analytical perspective, the answer is yes.

 

According to Cheong Wa Dae, Xi said, “China has maintained a blood alliance with North Korea. There have been many changes, yet the relationship has not changed fundamentally.”

 

In general, the Chinese government today does not refer to the Sino-North Korea relationship as “xue meng.” What the Chinese commonly use, instead, is “xian xue ning cheng.” It means a relationship “formed through fresh blood.” The common Korean translation for it is “dong maeng,” which literally means “blood alliance.” So, even if Xi didn’t use the word “blood alliance,” it would mean “blood alliance,” when translated into Korean.

 

Semantics aside, the important question is whether the nature of today’s relationship between China and North Korea, in this 21st century, can still be defined as an “alliance” or not. The resounding answer is yes.

 

http://m.koreatimes.co.kr/phone/news/view...._newsidx=234395

Bombing North Korea will not end well for North Koreans. You can't seem to acknowledge any of the negative effects of the thing you're advocating.

 

Luckily no one has died from what has been done so far, or will die in the future... except for those few million dead Asians, but apparently they don't count.

They won't be any less dead if we start bombing North Korea. What exactly do you see in the track record of foreign interventionism that leads you to believe things will turn out well?