Spock;1866225 wrote:An assumption can't be dumb by nature.

Another ridiculously stupid assumption.

Alright guys, new strategy...double down on previous strategy:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-escalates-rhetoric-on-threat-from-north-korea/2017/08/10/ff49e018-7ded-11e7-83c7-5bd5460f0d7e_story.html?utm_term=.6ed4bb8c123b

"Obama was such a weak and ineffective leader. HE HAD 8 YEARS to start World War III and couldn't do it. SAD! Look at what I'll accomplish in < a year."

Commander of Awesome;1866283 wrote:Alright guys, new strategy...double down on previous strategy:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-escalates-rhetoric-on-threat-from-north-korea/2017/08/10/ff49e018-7ded-11e7-83c7-5bd5460f0d7e_story.html?utm_term=.6ed4bb8c123b

"Obama was such a weak and ineffective leader. HE HAD 8 YEARS to start World War III and couldn't do it. SAD! Look at what I'll accomplish in < a year."

Agree with the rhetoric part. However, Barry had every opportunity to reduce NK's capabilities to harm us and accomplished absolutely nothing.

queencitybuckeye;1866284 wrote:Agree with the rhetoric part. However, Barry had every opportunity to reduce NK's capabilities to harm us and accomplished absolutely nothing.

As did ol georgie boy. Pointing fingers of politicians from the past at this stage is pointless. We're not scoring points here.

This is pretty fucking alarming. China did tell NK that they were on their own if they attacked the US, which is a good sign.

Commander of Awesome;1866288 wrote:As did ol georgie boy.

Yeah, typical foreign policy to kick the can down the road until someone gets stuck having to do something (as Bush had to do after 9/11 because Clinton failed to do much about Bin Laden).

Note that with the Iran nuclear agreement, Trump reversed his campaign rhetoric and said "I'm good with it". Kick the can down the road.

But now Trump cannot sit on his hands and let NK develop the capability to launch a nuclear strike on mainland US. It's a rather untenable situation, but the left is predictably going to criticize any choice he chooses, eventhough I would contend that career staffers always have and continue to be the driving force behind any decisions (see above re: Iran). No one, not even Trump, just ignores or dismisses the advice from staffers who have spent their 30-yr career studying NK and SE Asia.


However this all plays out, I think we eventually see a repeat at some point with Iran.

Commander of Awesome;1866288 wrote:As did ol georgie boy. Pointing fingers of politicians from the past at this stage is pointless. We're not scoring points here.

Not my goal to make comparisons or point fingers, just making the point that Trump couldn't get us where we stand today without the "help" of his predecessors. This isn't a new issue, it's been cooking for decades.

gut;1866291 wrote:Yeah, typical foreign policy to kick the can down the road until someone gets stuck having to do something (as Bush had to do after 9/11 because Clinton failed to do much about Bin Laden).

Note that with the Iran nuclear agreement, Trump reversed his campaign rhetoric and said "I'm good with it". Kick the can down the road.

But now Trump cannot sit on his hands and let NK develop the capability to launch a nuclear strike on mainland US. It's a rather untenable situation, but the left is predictably going to criticize any choice he chooses, eventhough I would contend that career staffers always have and continue to be the driving force behind any decisions (see above re: Iran). No one, not even Trump, just ignores or dismisses the advice from staffers who have spent their 30-yr career studying NK and SE Asia.


However this all plays out, I think we eventually see a repeat at some point with Iran.

Are you even paying attention?

'Really quite sad': Diplomats react to Trump thanking Putin for expelling US embassy workers

Exhibit A of Trump ignoring "staffers".

Commander of Awesome;1866294 wrote:Are you even paying attention?

'Really quite sad': Diplomats react to Trump thanking Putin for expelling US embassy workers

Exhibit A of Trump ignoring "staffers".

What a load of partisan bullshit. How is he supposed to force Putin to let them stay? Nothing more than classic Trump BS to downplay what Putin did.

Like I said, Exhibit A of Trump NOT ignoring staffers is the Iran nuclear agreement.

Or was Trump "ignoring staffers" when he signed the Russia sanctions that provoked this response from Putin?

gut;1866296 wrote:What a load of partisan bullshit. How is he supposed to force Putin to let them stay? Nothing more than classic Trump BS to downplay what Putin did.

Like I said, Exhibit A of Trump NOT ignoring staffers is the Iran nuclear agreement.

Or was Trump "ignoring staffers" when he signed the Russia sanctions that provoked this response from Putin?

LOL

Commander of Awesome;1866297 wrote:LOL

The "LOL" was you posting an article about how staffers felt disrespected as evidence Trump ignores advice from staffers.

I cited concrete examples. You cited an article about the feelz of low level staffers that really had little to do with the point you were flailing to make.

Commander of Awesome;1866288 wrote:This is pretty fucking alarming

Not really.

North Korea responded to the US warning saying: &#8220;We consider the U.S. no more than a lump which we can beat to a jelly any time,&#8221; the Korean Central News Agency said, quoting the Institute of International Studies researcher Kang Kum Chol.

Oh, that is a good one.
I do love reading their releases. Whoever writes them deserves a gold star for writing. They are pretty funny.

gut;1866291 wrote:Yeah, typical foreign policy to kick the can down the road until someone gets stuck having to do something (as Bush had to do after 9/11 because Clinton failed to do much about Bin Laden).

Note that with the Iran nuclear agreement, Trump reversed his campaign rhetoric and said "I'm good with it". Kick the can down the road.

But now Trump cannot sit on his hands and let NK develop the capability to launch a nuclear strike on mainland US. It's a rather untenable situation, but the left is predictably going to criticize any choice he chooses, eventhough I would contend that career staffers always have and continue to be the driving force behind any decisions (see above re: Iran). No one, not even Trump, just ignores or dismisses the advice from staffers who have spent their 30-yr career studying NK and SE Asia.


However this all plays out, I think we eventually see a repeat at some point with Iran.

I'm with a large portion of that.
I would just add that we are living with a nuclear North Korea with an ICBM and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. They have advanced them too far to just give them up. Even Bob Gates has come to that conclusion in a recent WSJ piece.
I'll also agree that Trump has agreed so far to stay in the Iran deal, but jury is still out if he sticks to it as he has to certify every 90-180 days I believe. So, he could easily end the deal if he is ticked off one day.

I'll link the two in this way. If the U.S. pulls out of the Iran deal, which has international support, why would North Korea agree to any sort of agreement with the U.S. if they know Trump will just pull out of it at any moment?

QuakerOats;1866313 wrote:North Korea responded to the US warning saying: &#8220;We consider the U.S. no more than a lump which we can beat to a jelly any time,&#8221; the Korean Central News Agency said, quoting the Institute of International Studies researcher Kang Kum Chol.

Maybe the author of this stuff is the former Iraqi Information Minister

[video=youtube;ZOnmBZHsnAM][/video]

Spock;1866225 wrote:An assumption can't be dumb by nature. NK regime is on a level never seen in modern history. Kim is way worse to his people than Saddam.

Iran?

CenterBHSFan;1866331 wrote:Iran?

And he might want to ask the Kurds if Saddam was worse than Kim is to his people.

like_that;1866140 wrote:

Also, "their" doesn't have to be countries to do business with NK. Have you even been reading the posts? S&L specifically referred to terrorists.

If terrorists were shopping for nukes, they wouldn't need to go any farther than Putin. The entire Russian state is a mob ran business. True terrorists are not directly tied to a specific country, as in a lone Government in control. My point is, they still need a country (ie ground) to operate.

NK isn't selling their nukes.

salto;1866441 wrote:If terrorists were shopping for nukes, they wouldn't need to go any farther than Putin. .....

Disagree.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5540750174001/?#sp=show-clips

Looks like this "impossible problem" has very few options. Whatever is done the left and the media will find some way to make it seem bad. At least Trump has China on board with sanctions.

THanks Don.

Looks like North Korea has decided to back down.

Who to thank, Donald Trump or Dennis Rodman

As predicted.

You're welcome. Prayers to all who spent 2 weeks pissing themselves.

Kim Jong Un isn't suicidal.

Hope this helps.

salto;1866762 wrote:Kim Jong Un isn't suicidal.

Hope this helps.

no he is just a meglamaniac