The Korea Situation; It's Very Serious

[Chicago White Sox]

You're right guys, that's brilliant. We should tell the experts to think of something. Why haven't we done that the last 20 years? That's my bad, I'll take the blame for that one. I'll go tell them right now and I'm sure this will only take a few minutes for them to iron out the details of something.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm actually a little in awe of this response. It's basically "do the status quo but louder and make me feel better about it!!!"

You really think you know everything huh. Maybe because people are afraid to make tough decisions. Why did my brother in law let his dog suffer until he simply rolled over and died rather than put him out of his misery weeks before? Or maybe they didn't feel it was a pressing enough issue at the time and figured they'd let it be someone else's problem years down the road. See global warming. Or maybe there are political consequences if there are casualties or something doesn't go to plan. Or maybe it's because people like you who are completely against US military involvement in foreign affairs represent a large portion of the voter base. Point is there are plenty of reasons for inaction, doesn't mean any of them are right and that we should continue to kick the can down the road until a US city is nuked.

[southsider2k5]

Nobody is pretending that. Stop lying. You can't make a point in this thread without lying and without obfuscating and without evading everyone else. It's cowardly and sad.

 

BS. This entire thread is predicated on the lie that hundreds of thousands of people ONLY die if one thing happens. It is completely and utterly Trumpesque in its level of untruth. Millions of people are going to die whether action is taken or not. That is quite literally the only truth here. "Diplomacy" hasn't achieved anything here except killing millions of people already.

 

The Korean Peninsula for the last half century is quite literally the biggest mistake diplomatically that the United States has made. Time after time they have chosen to appease this regime.

 

Millions are dead today, not in the future, but today, because of it.

 

Now they have an estimated 60 warheads and are quickly working towards the easiest parts which is delivering them to where they need to go. They are flat out telling us what they plan to do with the missiles, and still we pretend it isn't real, and instead roll over for them as if they were a child throwing a temper tantrum. Even if they aren't the ones pushing the button to launch, they will be selling the missiles and technology to those who will, assuming they haven't done so already.

 

Millions of people will die because of the situation the United States has actively allowed to happen.

 

I have no doubt that our current Presidential regime will continue the tradition since the end of active hostilities of talking loud, but really doing nothing about this. This will keep up until finally the inevitable happens. Whether it is this year, next year, 10 years or longer it is going to happen soon enough. In my opinion, the tipping point is long since gone. They have the nukes. It is already way too late. But what we really need now is the partisan blame in place so we all have our political marching orders, because THAT is all that matters here.

[StrangeSox]

More lies from a coward who can't answer any questions.

 

 

Bombing people doesn't save them. There is a very long history including many places around the world today demonstrating that.

 

What other countries do you want to bomb and occupy? How many extra deaths from that will be enough to convince you it doesn't work.

 

This isn't about partisan domestic politics but that's the only well you know how to go to. Go back and you'll find balta and others against this sort of interventionism during Obama's presidency as well. You've been here more than long enough and have participated in enough conversations to know this. Stop lying.

[StrangeSox]

There are no good options in north Korea, but blundering into war would be the worst

 

https://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/895...src=twsrc%5Etfw

Edited August 9, 2017 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

I have no doubt that our current Presidential regime will continue the tradition since the end of active hostilities of talking loud, but really doing nothing about this. This will keep up until finally the inevitable happens. Whether it is this year, next year, 10 years or longer it is going to happen soon enough. In my opinion, the tipping point is long since gone. They have the nukes. It is already way too late. But what we really need now is the partisan blame in place so we all have our political marching orders, because THAT is all that matters here.

Any word of this that wasn't equally applicable about why we had to strike the Soviets first? No? Ok good, just making sure.

[Balta1701]

You really think you know everything huh. Maybe because people are afraid to make tough decisions. Why did my brother in law let his dog suffer until he simply rolled over and died rather than put him out of his misery weeks before? Or maybe they didn't feel it was a pressing enough issue at the time and figured they'd let it be someone else's problem years down the road. See global warming. Or maybe there are political consequences if there are casualties or something doesn't go to plan. Or maybe it's because people like you who are completely against US military involvement in foreign affairs represent a large portion of the voter base. Point is there are plenty of reasons for inaction, doesn't mean any of them are right and that we should continue to kick the can down the road until a US city is nuked.

 

And none of that changes the calculus. No "top men" will figure out anything else.

 

1. Status quo, but louder, like we saw today.

2. Nuke them first.

 

Small scale military action is a violation of the 1953 Armistice the U.S. signed, so the first bomb would be us resuming hostilities. Small scale military action also does not hit all their weapons and it leaves Seoul exposed to retaliation. Large scale military action of the size necessary to protect Seoul from artillery kills thousands of North Korean soldiers and they would have no choice but to respond, with either full scale invasion or nuclear weapons. This calculation will not magically change.

 

 

3. Negotiate. In good faith this time. Make a deal where they give up some things, perhaps a portion of their missile technology, in exchange for aid. Then actually keep up that deal.

[caulfield12]

BS. This entire thread is predicated on the lie that hundreds of thousands of people ONLY die if one thing happens. It is completely and utterly Trumpesque in its level of untruth. Millions of people are going to die whether action is taken or not. That is quite literally the only truth here. "Diplomacy" hasn't achieved anything here except killing millions of people already.

 

The Korean Peninsula for the last half century is quite literally the biggest mistake diplomatically that the United States has made. Time after time they have chosen to appease this regime.

 

Millions are dead today, not in the future, but today, because of it.

 

Now they have an estimated 60 warheads and are quickly working towards the easiest parts which is delivering them to where they need to go. They are flat out telling us what they plan to do with the missiles, and still we pretend it isn't real, and instead roll over for them as if they were a child throwing a temper tantrum. Even if they aren't the ones pushing the button to launch, they will be selling the missiles and technology to those who will, assuming they haven't done so already.

 

Millions of people will die because of the situation the United States has actively allowed to happen.

 

I have no doubt that our current Presidential regime will continue the tradition since the end of active hostilities of talking loud, but really doing nothing about this. This will keep up until finally the inevitable happens. Whether it is this year, next year, 10 years or longer it is going to happen soon enough. In my opinion, the tipping point is long since gone. They have the nukes. It is already way too late. But what we really need now is the partisan blame in place so we all have our political marching orders, because THAT is all that matters here.

 

Hundreds of millions died in Russia and China in the 1950's, during peacetime. In fact, one of the largest reasons was China selling their grain to the Soviet Union in exchange for modernized/nuclear weapons. Where were we then? We can play this same game about Cambodia under the Khymer Rouge/Pol Pot, Bosnia/Serbia, Somalia/Sudan, Rwanda...going all the way back to Korea and Vietnam.

 

In the end, China and Russia aren't interested in having millions die because that will draw most of the industrialized world into an abyss there is no coming back from...Japan would be forced into the conflict, and that's something they have been dead set against since 1945.

 

Somehow, cooler heads have to prevail from those three entities, along with the new South Korean government, that has been caught in the middle on THAAD since Ms. Park was impeached.

Edited August 9, 2017 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

 

That statement must be the most erroneous in Sox history, as we shall see in the coming weeks.

 

Other than a large number of churches and charitable orgs, the numbers must be 75-80% in favor of direct military action (as long as their own kids don't have to fight), which many degrees higher than the number of Americans that can actually identify the key differences between North and South Korea in the first place.

Edited August 9, 2017 by caulfield12

[RockRaines]

BS. This entire thread is predicated on the lie that hundreds of thousands of people ONLY die if one thing happens. It is completely and utterly Trumpesque in its level of untruth. Millions of people are going to die whether action is taken or not. That is quite literally the only truth here. "Diplomacy" hasn't achieved anything here except killing millions of people already.

 

The Korean Peninsula for the last half century is quite literally the biggest mistake diplomatically that the United States has made. Time after time they have chosen to appease this regime.

 

Millions are dead today, not in the future, but today, because of it.

 

Now they have an estimated 60 warheads and are quickly working towards the easiest parts which is delivering them to where they need to go. They are flat out telling us what they plan to do with the missiles, and still we pretend it isn't real, and instead roll over for them as if they were a child throwing a temper tantrum. Even if they aren't the ones pushing the button to launch, they will be selling the missiles and technology to those who will, assuming they haven't done so already.

 

Millions of people will die because of the situation the United States has actively allowed to happen.

 

I have no doubt that our current Presidential regime will continue the tradition since the end of active hostilities of talking loud, but really doing nothing about this. This will keep up until finally the inevitable happens. Whether it is this year, next year, 10 years or longer it is going to happen soon enough. In my opinion, the tipping point is long since gone. They have the nukes. It is already way too late. But what we really need now is the partisan blame in place so we all have our political marching orders, because THAT is all that matters here.

So. What's your solution.

[caulfield12]

So. What's your solution.

 

The same the best and brightest of the Trump admin has come up with for Afghanistan.

 

Status quo.

 

It's gotten so bad Congress is having to threaten to withhold funding if no new plans or strategies are presented in the coming weeks.

[Chicago White Sox]

3. Negotiate. In good faith this time. Make a deal where they give up some things, perhaps a portion of their missile technology, in exchange for aid. Then actually keep up that deal.

Yup, let's negotiate with the madman and assume he'll keep up his end of the bargain! Great idea Balta! Amazing how you can rip our "top men" and yet come up with this gem.

[greg775]

All of their rhetoric, their positions, their desire to not be dead.

The regular citizens have no say and I think Kim Jong Un knows he's not going to be living a long life so might as well go out with a bang and kill millions of Americans and South Koreans.

 

But the one guy calling the shots is a bit unpredictable. He may think nuking the US is a pretty big trophy he wouldn't mind taking with him on his way to meet his maker.

Exactly. And I firmly believe one morning we're gonna wake up to reports several nukes are on the way to the USA. It's going to be mass panic and I think could be the end of the world as we know it. If those nukes hit US soil, WTF are we gonna do?

 

Now they have an estimated 60 warheads and are quickly working towards the easiest parts which is delivering them to where they need to go. They are flat out telling us what they plan to do with the missiles, and still we pretend it isn't real, and instead roll over for them as if they were a child throwing a temper tantrum. Even if they aren't the ones pushing the button to launch, they will be selling the missiles and technology to those who will, assuming they haven't done so already.

 

Millions of people will die because of the situation the United States has actively allowed to happen.

This is a great post. We are in deep deep s***, folks.

 

Somehow, cooler heads have to prevail from those three entities, along with the new South Korean government, that has been caught in the middle on THAAD since Ms. Park was impeached.

You say "somehow." I pray there is a way. For the first time ever I see an end of the world scenario here. It's all set up too perfectly. A moron president of the USA in Trump; a psycho in Jong Un, and two powers, China and Russia, who have no interest in cleaning this up for some reason.

To the pacifistic people ... what would China do if N. Korea was uttering this s*** to them about how they ARE GOING TO attack? What would Russia do? We are in trouble folks.

[Chicago White Sox]

That statement must be the most erroneous in Sox history, as we shall see in the coming weeks.

 

Other than a large number of churches and charitable orgs, the numbers must be 75-80% in favor of direct military action (as long as their own kids don't have to fight), which many degrees higher than the number of Americans that can actually identify the key differences between North and South Korea in the first place.

Caulfield, what the f*** are you talking about? Most erroneous quote in "Sox" history? I assume you mean Soxtalk, but regardless I'm not surprised that you ignored the numerous ridiculous statements & fake statistics you provide here (like in the post above) on a regular basis. Want to back up this 75-80% claim? One simple google search provided multiple data points suggesting 50% to 60% of US citizens oppose getting involved in Syria & other foreign affairs. And while different, there is a subset of the population that is generally anti war or unnecessarily putting our soldiers at risk. I'm still not how my statement is erroneous other than perhaps my accusation aimed at Balta. But if I'm wrong and the vast majority of this country is eager for some military action like you suggest, please provide some facts that prove that notion.

Edited August 9, 2017 by Chicago White Sox

[greg775]

So. What's your solution.

Guys, you consider greg a moron but please tell me I'm wrong here. You can't.

The solution... The only solution (and it won't happen).

 

TRUMP: Pleads with Russia and China to have an emergency summit in which we will tell them our plans of blowing N. Korea off the map unless this can be resolved. On the final day of the summit, invite Kim Jong Un to attend. I would think he'd come and not think we simply were using it as an excuse to assassinate him.

 

At the Summit, get China and Russia to negotiate a solution. It's up to them this time. Do they care or do they secretly want USA and N. Korea to take part in thermonuclear war in which they hope nuclear fallout does not affect their countries at all, just the USA and the Koreas. Without the help of China and Russia, N. Korea is going to escalate and fire some nukes our way and at that point, it's all over.

[greg775]

This will keep up until finally the inevitable happens. Whether it is this year, next year, 10 years or longer it is going to happen soon enough. In my opinion, the tipping point is long since gone. They have the nukes. It is already way too late. But what we really need now is the partisan blame in place so we all have our political marching orders, because THAT is all that matters here.

This is very very astute and very scary.

 

3. Negotiate. In good faith this time. Make a deal where they give up some things, perhaps a portion of their missile technology, in exchange for aid. Then actually keep up that deal.

I don't think they want to negotiate anything involving their nukes. Jong Un doesn't care about sanctions as long as he is comfy. These crazy leaders only want personal gratification. He doesn't care about his people. That's why it's in China and Russia's hands. And they seem to be enjoying the fracas, figuring the USA is a sitting duck for nukes.

[caulfield12]

Caulfield, what the f*** are you talking about? Most erroneous quote in "Sox" history? I assume you mean Soxtalk, but regardless I'm not surprised that you ignored the numerous ridiculous statements & fake statistics you provide here (like in the post above) on a regular basis. Want to back up this 75-80% claim? One simple google search provided multiple data points suggesting 50% to 60% of US citizens oppose getting involved in Syria & other foreign affairs. And while different, there is a subset of the population that is generally anti war or unnecessarily putting our soldiers at risk. I'm still not how my statement is erroneous other than perhaps my accusation aimed at Balta. But if I'm wrong and the vast majority of this country is eager for some military action like you suggest, please provide some facts that prove that notion.

 

"Or maybe it's because people like you who are completely against US military involvement in foreign affairs represent a large portion of the voter base."

 

What is a large portion? It's definitely over 50%, so is it 60%? 2/3rd's? 75%?

 

Pretty much nobody (outside of us bleeding hearts) cares about Syria or the Middle East unless it impacts them directly, or they see an an iconic photograph of an adorable but clearly dead child washed up on the beach or another cute and shellshocked kid in an ambulance covered in blood and muck (in which case they make a donation or share the story at FB only for it to be forgotten days later.) Syria and the civil war there and refugee crisis just don't register. They're certainly not a DIRECT threat to the American people.

 

If you tee up a survey question, "If there is strong/compelling evidence from the US intelligence community that North Korea will be able to strike at the heart of every American city within the next 12 months with thermonuclear weapons, would you be for or against taking decisive military action/s (assuming the last negotiations fail)?" You're going to get all the Trump voters and many independents taking the position that it's better to take him or the leadership out than waiting for something bad to happen.

 

There's no way it's less than "a large portion of the voter base."

 

If you include the non-voter base, those most uninformed on current affairs, it will arguably be even higher.

Edited August 9, 2017 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

This is very very astute and very scary.

 

 

I don't think they want to negotiate anything involving their nukes. Jong Un doesn't care about sanctions as long as he is comfy. These crazy leaders only want personal gratification. He doesn't care about his people. That's why it's in China and Russia's hands. And they seem to be enjoying the fracas, figuring the USA is a sitting duck for nukes.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/09/opinions/twe...etzl/index.html

Every realistic solution is in the hands of the Chinese.

 

 

3. Other than a change of leadership within North Korea or an extremely improbable and almost certainly ineffective and counter-productive US military strike, the only likely means of driving this perceptual change among North Korea's leaders would be by ratcheting up sanctions and other non-military coercive measures to the point of undermining their grip on power in the absence of denuclearization.

 

4. Although the sanctions on North Korea announced Saturday build on previous rounds of sanctions, they will almost certainly not convince North Korea to change course in any meaningful way. The sanctions may well pinch, but North Korea's brutal leaders have shown that they are willing to let hundreds of thousands of their citizens starve to death rather than make strategic concessions.

 

The only way sanctions could potentially lead North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons would be if China credibly expressed its willingness to shut off North Korea's trade and oil lifeline in the absence of denuclearization -- something China is far from willing to do for its own strategic reasons.

 

5. North Korea provides China a buffer between itself and US-allied South Korea, a tool for preventing the reunification of the Korean peninsula, and a cheap source of natural resources and labor. In exchange, China provides nearly all of its crude oil and most of the food going to its military, services cash transfers to Pyongyang via Chinese financial institutions and keeps the North Korean economy afloat via trade and access to Chinese markets. Without this support and China's protection in watering down UN sanctions and other forms of international pressure, North Korea would likely collapse in short order.

 

 

6. But Beijing's support for Pyongyang comes at a growing cost. North Korea is increasingly hostile to China and its nuclear weapons program undermines the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which China supports. China's relationship with North Korea makes Beijing complicit in the "crime against humanity" currently underway in North Korea, and its instability and technological unevenness create the possibility of a future nuclear accident that would contaminate northeast China.

 

North Korean belligerence also justifies the strong US presence in South Korea, the strengthening of missile-defense capabilities in South Korea and Japan that undermine China's nuclear deterrent, the eventual revision of Article 9 of the Japanese constitution which outlaws war as a means to settle international disputes and underpins Japan's postwar pacifism, and increases the likelihood of a nuclear arms race in Asia. All of this harms Beijing's interests more than those of any other country.

 

7. Chinese policymakers may want North Korea to follow China's example and reform from within, but North Korea's leaders, even with their economy in ruins, will not be able to make sufficient economic reforms in the absence of political reforms that would undermine the foundation of the country's totalitarian structure. Meaningful economic growth would require a level of market information and worker empowerment that is simply incompatible with North Korea's brutal system of control, but easing up that control would eventually break the dominance of North Korea's leaders and their Workers' Party. Given the massive numbers of North Koreans who have been murdered, starved, and imprisoned by the current regime, it is hard to imagine many of North Korea's top leaders surviving a transition to a more open society.

 

8. For these reasons, Chinese leaders face a binary choice. If China believes it is better off with a nuclear armed and hostile North Korea on its border, it can continue on its current path of expressing displeasure and supporting some sanctions but not placing sufficient pressure on North Korea to alter Pyongyang's strategic calculus and actions. If China believes it cannot live with a nuclear armed and hostile North Korea, Beijing must do what it takes to force the North Korean leadership to either give up their nuclear weapons or face regime destabilization and collapse.

 

9. Continuing along the current path will give Pyongyang ever more leverage over Beijing and an increasing ability to force China to maintain or increase levels of material and political support no matter how much damage North Korea might be doing to China's broader strategic interests. This approach will also invite the United States, South Korea and Japan to more fully realize that the best and perhaps only way to influence North Korea's behavior will be by increasing the costs imposed on China for its tacit endorsement of the status quo.

 

10. Alternately, China could decide that it is willing to push for change by giving Pyongyang a choice between denuclearization and a cutoff of China's economic and trade lifeline. This would be a big risk for Beijing, but the rewards could be huge.

 

11. If China could convince North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons, China would emerge as a responsible power player in the region and undermine US and allied efforts to counter the North Korean nuclear threat.

 

If North Korea was unwilling to give up its nuclear weapons and China turned up the pressure to the point that threatened North Korea's leaders' grip on power, China could also play the leading role in managing a Korean reunification process that could expressly protect China's national interests. This might include making sure US forces would not go North of the 38th parallel and even potentially stationing Chinese troops in northern Korea for some period of time under a UN mandate. Korean reunification would enhance China's trade relations with Korea, open a high-tech corridor from southern Korea to northeast China, eliminate the threat of nuclear proliferation, reduce the justification for the maintenance of US forces in Korea at current levels, and put China in a great position to positively assist in the transitional process. This would lead to generations of good will and mutually beneficial collaboration.

 

12. Because China has traditionally seen North Korea through the prism of its broader strategic rivalry with the United States, however, some level of strategic trust between Beijing and Washington would be required to make this type of transition possible. Given the highly erratic behavior, strategic incongruity, and general unreliability of the US administration, reaching this level of strategic trust in the present context would be a tall order.

 

The bottom line is that while the continued evolution of sanctions places more pressure on Pyongyang, these sanctions will not work as long as China is unwilling to push far harder and risk far more for denuclearization. While the US can and should continue to increase the costs to both China and North Korea of the status quo, real change will only happen when China changes its policy based on its own perceived strategic interests or when the North Korean regime finally collapses under its own weight, which could take years.

 

Because both of these possibilities remain unlikely in the short-term, the US will likely back into a policy of containing North Korea similar to how the US contained for many years a nuclear armed Soviet Union. This type of relationship could eventually become relatively stable because North Korean leaders would be very cautious about launching a nuclear weapon that would certainly lead to their country's annihilation.

 

But while the North Korean leader's verbal bellicosity has already been factored into the system, the same attributes are far more destabilizing when they come from the President of the United States -- and the possibility of miscalculation by one side or the other is increasing by the day.

 

 

 

Greg, for the record, nuclear fallout is 100x more likely to impact China, Eastern Russia and Japan than the USA.

Edited August 9, 2017 by caulfield12

[greg775]

Nuclear fallout is 100x more likely to impact China, Eastern Russia and Japan than the USA.

Then I wish during a summit they'd explain that and get China on board. And Russia on board. Though Russia hates us even more now and China doesn't give a flip about the USA. I wonder what the odds are that within 3 years at least 2 countries are completely destroyed by human beings and inhabitable. My guess is N and S Korea will be wiped off the map and we can only hope the USA is unscathed. But if there's any fallout affecting Russia or China they'd most assuredly send nukes our way as well.

Not a pretty picture.

[Chicago White Sox]

"Or maybe it's because people like you who are completely against US military involvement in foreign affairs represent a large portion of the voter base."

 

What is a large portion? It's definitely over 50%, so is it 60%? 2/3rd's? 75%?

 

Pretty much nobody (outside of us bleeding hearts) cares about Syria or the Middle East unless it impacts them directly, or they see an an iconic photograph of an adorable but clearly dead child washed up on the beach or another cute and shellshocked kid in an ambulance covered in blood and muck (in which case they make a donation or share the story at FB only for it to be forgotten days later.) Syria and the civil war there and refugee crisis just don't register. They're certainly not a DIRECT threat to the American people.

 

If you tee up a survey question, "If there is strong/compelling evidence from the US intelligence community that North Korea will be able to strike at the heart of every American city within the next 12 months with thermonuclear weapons, would you be for or against taking decisive military action/s (assuming the last negotiations fail)?" You're going to get all the Trump voters and many independents taking the position that it's better to take him or the leadership out than waiting for something bad to happen.

 

There's no way it's less than "a large portion of the voter base."

 

If you include the non-voter base, those most uninformed on current affairs, it will arguably be even higher.

Lol...large portion a majority. That wasn't my point, but I'm glad you continue come up with your own statistics to argue against the "most erroneous post in Sox history". If you're a democratic leader, there is a sizable portion of your voter base who would be against military action when dealing with foreign affairs, short of a last resort. That's not a dig against anyone, but a reality certain politicians may face when deciding a course of action if they're interested in reelection.

[StrangeSox]

It's pretty f***ed up if you're not against military action as anything but an absolute last resort imo

[Chicago White Sox]

It's pretty f***ed up if you're not against military action as anything but an absolute last resort imo

Who said I wasn't? I'm pretty sure all my arguments on North Korea have been we're approaching the point of last resort. I'm just arguing against Caulfield's "most erroneous post in Sox history" comment, which indirectly implied (by his estimates) 70 to 80% of the country would love to go to war.

Edited August 9, 2017 by Chicago White Sox

[knightni]

Because the competent state department the last 8 years did so much to solve this problem?

So, the logic is, if competency couldn't fix it, then incompetency will?

 

 

[Quin]

Yup, let's negotiate with the madman and assume he'll keep up his end of the bargain! Great idea Balta! Amazing how you can rip our "top men" and yet come up with this gem.

 

Still hard to tell if we're talking Trump or Kim.

[caulfield12]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/09/t...eactions-241434

Brilliant, Trump might want to get around to nominating an ambassador to South Korea at some point.

Meanwhile, Guam and the Marianas Islands want their own missile defense systems for self-protection now.

 

 

 

 

Would like to see someone spell out a scenario where the US unilaterally strikes first and we still look justified in the court of world opinion.

 

Let's not forget Trump has to go through Congress and the UN Security Council (China /Russia) first, and nobody's going to be easily convinced about American "proof/justification/rationale" as the entire world was played for suckers by Colin Powell and Wolfowitz/Cheney/Rumsfield the last time around. Will Britain even be on our side this time out?

 

We probably have Israel, Turkey and Poland on our side now...? Anyone else? Australia? Not after Turnbull was embarrassed by Trump on that phone call, although they have a new PM again. Saudia Arabia, I guess.

 

South Korea and Japan simply want Trump not to do anything stupid or precipitous.

Edited August 9, 2017 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

Who said I wasn't? I'm pretty sure all my arguments on North Korea have been we're approaching the point of last resort. I'm just arguing against Caulfield's "most erroneous post in Sox history" comment, which indirectly implied (by his estimates) 70 to 80% of the country would love to go to war.

 

 

This survey doesn't even begin to reflect the recent intelligence over the last 24 hours that provoked the Trump fire/fury/eternal damnation meltdown...once again, this survey came BEFORE that point.

 

Now we supposedly are facing an imminent direct threat, not a theoretical months or years into the future one.

 

 

Sixty percent of surveyed Americans said they felt the threat can be contained. Republicans were more inclined than Democrats to say North Korea's nuclear program is "a threat to the US that requires military action now,"with 48% of surveyed Republicans and 22% of surveyed Democrats saying that reflects their views.

 

The UN Security Council unanimously passed sanctions on North Korea Saturday following missile tests from North Korea last month. Experts believe if the most recent test had been fired on a flatter, standard trajectory, it could have threatened cities like Los Angeles, Denver and Chicago.

 

Trump told a reporter last month, "We will handle North Korea. We are going to be able to handle them. It will be handled. We handle everything."

 

The CBS News poll was conducted from August 3 to 6, surveying 1,111 people with a margin of error of 4%.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/08/politics/nor...+Search+Results

Edited August 9, 2017 by caulfield12