You underestimate, people hate NK.

why?

Their reputation. They are one of the few countries left that the USA could invade and (globally) no one would care.

Can you expand on that? What is their reputation, and where did you get your information from?

They are perhaps committing the worst human rights abuses of any country. Look into their prison camps where literal generations have been worked to death as slaves. (Escape from camp 14 is highly readable)

Plus the huge amount of corruption at the top while the populace can barely get enough food to not starve

They are perhaps committing the worst human rights abuses of any country. Look into their prison camps where literal generations have been worked to death as slaves. (Escape from camp 14 is highly readable)

Its hard to know what North Korea is actually like outside of the propaganda. Defectors stories from North Korea have again and again been proven to be falsified in many ways (Why do North Korean defector testimonies so often fall apart?), including details of the famed Camp 14:

When questioned, Shin confessed that parts of his account were also inaccurate, including sections on his time in Camp 14, the infamous labour camp for political prisoners, and the age at which he was tortured.

I'd also like to come back to this quote of yours:

They are perhaps committing the worst human rights abuses of any country.

Well, lets look at some facts...

*The Japanese scientists of Unit 731, who performed live vivisections on their populace, gassed and bombed them, amputated limbs and infected citizens to see how they died, and were pardoned by the US in exchange for the information they collected.

*The most powerful country in the world has committed more crimes against national sovereignty and intervened in more countries' political processes than any other country in history. Dozens of nations have been utterly destroyed and tens of thousands killed by US military intervention throughout the world. This is one of many articles on the topic.

*The wars in Iraq and Syria have led to horrifying humanitarian catastrophes, including the estimated deaths of up to one million Iraqi civilians. "More than one million Iraqis have died as a result of the conflict in their country since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, according to research conducted by one of Britain's leading polling groups."

*“Nothing had prepared us for that level of civilian casualties,” said Chris Woods, director of Airwars.

*The US has supported more terrorist and extremist groups than any other country in the world. Here are thirty five examples.

*Why Is the U.S. Killing So Many Civilians in Syria and Iraq?

*And speaking on reputations, I have news for you, buddy: 25% of the world thinks the US is the biggest threat to peace of any country. Pakistan comes in second at a measly 8%.

North Korea is not a paradise and the Kim regime has committed flagrant abuses of human rights, but we have zero moral high ground to claim here, and invading the country or bombing them into submission would only cement the US as an evil imperialist power, as history seems to show as well. In demonizing North Korea while refusing to look at the abuses committed by your own country, you are proving yourself to be heavily indoctrinated by actual US propaganda, which hopes that you don't look any deeper than the latest CNN feed.

Lets say 50% of the defectors stories are true. They are horrific even then

Also unlucky for you I'm not an American so calm it with accusations of saying I'm indoctrinated and have a very shallow understanding

Apologies on the American accusation! I'm American myself and I get tired of the controlling influence of nationalism that I see in this country

My point is just that even if those stories are true, NK has done less harm to the world than the US empire has over the past 50 years. The Korean problem shouldn't be solved with war or intimidation, which is what US politicians have been pushing for years.

Their reputation

They don't have a reputation, their leader does. They don't have one choice in the matter and if we do strike them I want that on your conscience that your tax dollars would be killing more innocent people but in a quicker much larger swath than you've seen in the last 50 years.

no one would care

I'm pretty sure Russia and China would not appreciate the potential fallout from such an ordeal. And I would care. Diplomacy and sanctions have done a fine job for the last 30 years. We don't need a global conflict because I guarantee you, that if we use nuclear weapons, that's what will happen.

I'm sure most people would support the USA invading itself.

People do?

what the hell does aboud mean????

We must not forget. This was planned long ago. We're just way behind schedule.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw&app=desktop

That didn't even mention North Korea.

Like Iraq?

You're right. I thought it was. But then again that was two presidents ago. I'm sure the program has been updated. In the past we have always treated nuclear nations with respect. But maybe not this time. I just looked it up. They've been nuclear since 2006. And still no respect. They're just trying to get attention. But when we just keep ignoring them at some point they'll act. I just hope that they don't end up acting like Japan did.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1930

That didn't even mention North Korea.

Why let the facts get in the way of a good story?

We also must not forget that this North Korean crisis would not be what it is without Obama+Clinton's decision to remove Gaddafi in Libya.

In 2002, Gaddafi set an example by surrendering all his weapons of mass destruction, becoming the hero for a day in America's eyes.

By invading Libya in 2011 under "humanitarian pretenses" and then removing Gaddafi, America made a very symbolic statement that there is no protection nor inherent right to sovereignty to those who comply by giving up their WMD's. Instead, the countries that comply are now vulnerable to the full force of the Western military and they will be defeated.

Is there any surprise North Korea isn't going to give up their nuclear intentions? Is there any reason to believe that they will be left alone if they comply to the world's wishes?

Nope. I think it's like the nouveau-riche joining the country club. But instead of trying to fit in, he's just sticking to his old ways and annoying everyone.

Rodney Dangerfield in Caddyshack comes to mind.

Couldn't you say the same about the East? Ukraine willingly gave up their nuclear weapons and were in turn invaded by Russia.

I don't think that you can say the same about Russia's involvement to Ukraine.

Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons in 1994. Russia was also promised that NATO would not expand eastwards around that same time. Over time, NATO broke that promise and converted all ex-Warsaw Pact countries to their Cold War-era military alliance, eventually knocking on Ukraine's door around 2012-2013.

Then came the Western-backed coup of 2014, which was clearly instigated by Western intelligence and friendly Ukrainian Neo-Nazi groups.

Russia is also dealing with being on the other side of the greatest military buildup since World War Two along Russia's western border. The West has also built an anti-missile shield in Romania AND installed missiles in all of these new Eastern European NATO countries. Why provoke Russia like this? What is to be gained?

I'm no cheerleader of Putin, but it is clear who the aggressors in Eastern Europe are right now.

Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons in 1994. Russia was also promised that NATO would not expand eastwards around that same time. Over time, NATO broke that promise and converted all ex-Warsaw Pact countries to their Cold War-era military alliance, eventually knocking on Ukraine's door around 2012-2013.

Highly debatable, and NATO not expanding eastwards was never part of any official agreement. You are referring to remarks made by several politicians that expressed that NATO wouldn't expand eastward, but there was never any official document that stated those terms

Yes, there was no official document, but these were promises made by the US President at the time (George Bush Sr.) and his representative. Hardly just another politician.

The promise was that East Germany would be allowed to have special NATO privileges, and that would be it. Central and Eastern Europe would be demilitarized in order to provide a bridge from East to West.

I get it. America bested the Soviet Union. Nothing was on paper and the US took advantage of that.

My point remains that by starting the new chapter of Russo-American relations with this sort of deception, America ensured that the relationship would remain tense as all hell unless Russia bent the knee. Yeltsin did at the expense of the Russian people's livelihood. Putin didn't.

Source on Bush saying that? I've know Baker denies it. The only one I know of who is confirmed to have said it is Genscher from Germany

Thus, during the press conference following the February 24–25 Camp David meetings, Bush declared in general terms that “the former territory of [East Germany] should have a special military status, that it would take into account the legitimate security interests of all interested countries, including those of the Soviet Union.”

Nor did a telephone conversation between Bush and Gorbachev on February 28 help clarify the issue. During the call, Bush told Gorbachev that “the united Germany should remain in NATO; that American troops will remain in Europe as long as the Europeans want them; and that there needs to be a special status for the former territory of the GDR.” Further, the president pledged that the United States would recognize the “legitimate security interests” of all parties. Notably, in highlighting limits to NATO’s future role in Germany and recognizing the need to acknowledge Soviet “security interests,” Bush was echoing comments by Baker and Gates during their February 9 talks with the Soviet leadership. Combined, the new terms could be interpreted as explaining how NATO would avoid expanding eastward if Germany reunited within NATO.

And here's more on Baker's remarks.

Yes I have read that, Bakers explanation for what he meant is unconvincing and I do think he meant that the US wouldn't expand eastward. However he didn't have anywhere near the authority to guarantee that, and I think it's clear that Bush never said it.

Overall I think it is pretty scummy by both Baker and Genscher, but I'm not overly sympathetic towards the Russians in this situation since I don't think it comes close to meeting the requirements of an "agreement"

That's fair.

Yet, even if we remove American deception with regards to NATO expansion from the Russo-American discussion, we are still left with American provocation, manipulation of information and aggression. What is the purpose in encircling post-1991 Russia with NATO besides provocation and aggression? What is the purpose of placing missiles in all of these countries? The US are playing war games that can easily result in a nuclear standoff.

Robert Gates, CIA director in 1991, has written in his memoir Duty that with the collapse of the U.S.S.R., Cheney “wanted to see the dismantlement not only of the Soviet Union and the Russian Empire but of Russia itself.” I'm afraid that most of Washington are Cheneyites now, and have been building up to this since it became clear that Putin wasn't going to be their puppet.

In law, there is this thing called a verbal contract.

Neither person who said NATO would spread eastward had the authority to make that agreement. That would be like holding Trump legally responsible for not repealing the ACA even though he said he would

In international politics, the only thing that holds anyone legally responsible is warfare and sanctions.

Yes that's true, I'm just saying no one can be held responsible for a verbal contract that they never had the authority to fulfill in the first place. For a dramatic example, If I verbally told you that I would sell you the Mona Lisa for $50.00 and I didn't deliver, you couldn't sue me for the Mona Lisa; it was never mine to sell in the first place

That's right but a lawsuit won't be a repercussion in this situation.

NATO didn't convert those countries m, those countries enthusiastically wanted to become part of NATO because of their more than justified hatred of Russia.

Yeah but at this point what option does the world have? North Korea is fucking stupid, and doomed. Unless they have an uprising, that country is going to become a nuclear wasteland.

Have you ever questioned the narrative being presented to you about North Korea?

Considering the fact that this is the first time I've ever seen the narrative, no.

I think we need to invade North Korea because their country is asian nazi germany, not because I believe they have the capacity to fight a war with the U.S. and endanger our security-a story I haven't even been following, because I have no reason to believe it is true, whatsoever.

If North Korea is actually a communist paradise, it would be one of the largest and most unfounded conspiracy on the planet. From everything I've seen, they are the greatest violators of human rights, and need to go.

Can't do that - it would contaminate the trillions of dollars worth of resources that we need to extract after we invade.

We can avoid their rare metal deposits.

Trump had no real interest in a war with North Korea. Its just another chess move.

He doesn't know what he is doing there is no chess move

You sound like the media during the primaries. And during the election. And election night. And after the election. How many times must you be proven wrong before you change tactics?

What has he done during his presidency that shows he was capable of handling the job?

Jobs. DOW. Illegal immigration is down. Shit he's doing what I hired him for.

Jobs at a lower rate than obama. Amazing all he had to do was do nothing and obamas policies would do all the work

Holy shit 😂😂yeah buddy you keep believing that about Obama. The number is down to 4.6% unemployment because of Trump. Not Obama.

Obama even said "Those jobs are never coming back! What does trump have? A magic wand?"

But hey you believe what you want to believe power to you friend.

Obama said that about coal and he was right. Trump hasn't done shit lol how misinformed can you be.

Lololol there are more coal jobs than ever right now. Even if there weren't right now, which there are, the industry is on the rise again.

Give me proof it's on the rise, and fuck coal anyways it's terrible for the environment and isn't efficient.

https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2017-06-26/coal-on-the-rise-in-china-us-india-after-record-2016-drop

If that doesn't work for you I'll find you another

That's not even talking about the United States. Yes coal jobs in the US have gone up but by such an insignificant amount and there's not data that suggests those jobs are here to stay. Also why is bringing back coal a good thing lmao.

Jobs.

Believing any change in job growth is due to a president in their first year is always incorrect, especially when they have yet to enact any legislation.

DOW.

See above.

Illegal immigration is down.

True, the US as a country has become less desirable to enter across the board, both illegally and legally.

It wouldn't be a war. It would be a bombing run. Not sure that NK has any air force or SAM defenses.

Trump campaigned on no more pointless foreign wars, I don't think he would put troops on the ground.

NK reportedly has very strong SAM defenses. Dated, but lots of it. Don't expect light casualties or a quick win on this. It'll e a slugfest on the ground along the DMZ

Pretty sure he has been stopped @ every turn by the RINO's. I'm not going to say we will not got to war w/ NK, but I don't think It will be on Trumps behest.

I mean I don't understand your logic there it's not congress saber rattling and spouting off rhetoric the likes of which we normally see from tinpot dictators like Kim jung in himself.

Keep telling yourself trump isn't the problem though, been working well so far.

Up yours w/ your cute little quirk! You act as if Trump is the answer to all your woes, yet NK has been spouting off since 94 & now TPTB have decided we need another pan Asian war & the president is doing exactly like he's been told. The same thing w/ Obama continuing the Afghan fiasco dispite his rhetoric.

No trump absolutely is NOT the answer to anyone's woes lmao. That's my point.

he also campaigned on ending isis in 30 days

Well, we're not going to be supporting Islamic terrorists in Syria anymore. And they're saying the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria is defeated in Iraq. I fucking hate Trump, but ISIS might really be completely done being relevant very soon.

i remember when Obama made tonnes of promises and knocked every single one of them out of the park.... oh wait... It's almost like politicians use rhetoric and grandstanding to win elections?!?

And people here still act surprised and offended when they lie... One would thing this of all places would know better.

NK reportedly has very strong SAM defenses. Dated, but lots of it.

You can have one of those, either strong air defense or dated air defense....

NK's tech is so far behind NATO and China would have complete air superiority, they haven nothing that can even endanger modern planes.

You can have a lot of shitty equipment. Kind of like fighting 500 toddlers hand to hand.

You can but it's useless. It doesn't matter if you're shooting a tank with 1000 rifles, you're not damaging it. You can have thousands of SAM batteries, if they aren't even able to target the plane they are completely useless.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/if-donald-trump-attacks-north-korea-beware-kims-air-defense-20207

Some light reading for you.

Not really, even your article says the most modern system they are confirmed to have are S200, which are horribly outdated. They might have a cheap knockoff S300 but that again is very outdated, even modernized Russian S300 can't reliably track modern stealth planes such as the F22 and F35....

So yeah, their air defense is absolutely useless.

And the f22 and f35 make up how much of our Air Force and (more important in this scenario) navy strike forces at this point?

Little to none, especially those assets already in the region.

Anybody who thinks this will involve a single sortie one and done strike is fooling themselves. If this kicks off it's gonna be a big deal, and the loss of life of American servicemen will be massive.

Do you even have any understanding of military strategy?

You send in F22 and 35 to destroy SAM radar sites, after that the rest comes in. Then there are also the Bombers, B1, B2 etc.

It wont be a single sortie but it will be over in a week, with little to no loss of life to NATO and China. NK is just so extremely behind in every single aspect it's not even a challenge.

Yes I do. Im wondering if YOU realize the difference between expected Equipment capabilities and the realities of who has what equipment where, and how much of it. The overwhelming majority of the heavy lifting is going to be done by the f-18s on the carriers and f-15s and 16s in South Korea, and big conventional bombers from Guam not the 22s and 35s in the limited numbers there are on active duty at this time and in theatre.

Besides a lot of that equipment is camouflaged or in bunkers and caves, and won't be rolled out until after the first wave of strikes. That's something the military acknowledges.

I'm also saying the second this kicks off there's gonna be a lot of damage done to military assets along the DMZ, and a lot of your air support will be devoted there initially to control the damage there.

Wow, you clearly don't. No it would not be done by fucking F18/15s haha, but 22s and 35s, B1s and B2s as I said.

Besides a lot of that equipment is camouflaged or in bunkers and caves, and won't be rolled out until after the first wave of strikes.

Radar is EXTREMELY easy to identify and target, so "hiding" that stuff does not do anything.

I'm also saying the second this kicks off there's gonna be a lot of damage done to military assets along the DMZ, and a lot of your air support will be devoted there initially to control the damage there.

Not really, do you even have any fucking idea of how much air power NATO has?

Tell me again how many total 22/35s are in theatre there vs conventional gen 3 fighter/attack aircraft?

You are right, radar is easy to identify-when it's on, not when it's hidden and off.

Yes NATO has a lot of airpower. Again how much NATO airpower is in South Korea?

Oh little to none cause it's the North Atlantic treaty organization. Ya they do peacekeeping outside of that, but their defense obligation is to Europe not South Korea.

Tell me more though.

300 22/35 can be deployed in a day, both are already carrying out missions against ISIS, so that's more than enough.

It's easy to target when it's on, all the sites are already identified by satellite...

Again how much NATO airpower is in South Korea?

A shit ton. And even more can be there in a day...

Sorry but you very clearly have no idea what you're talking about and you fail to make any arguments supporting your initial claim.

Well being that my initial claim was to counter someone saying it would be a simple bombing run ya I think I did. But cool man I'm not here to argue with another know it all on a Reddit thread who's probable been playing too much red alert in between jerking his war boner into his MAGA happy sock.

I guess arguing is hard if you can't make a single arugment haha

I did. And you countered with "ya well I know things" and getting belligerent about it.

So whatever man your opinion means fuck all. Not worth my time.

Goodbye.

No you didn't. First you link an article that even backs up what I said. Then you go well there are no F22/35 B2/1 in the area, when in reality the majority of them can be there in a day.

You really do not have a single argument. It's ok to admit that you didn't know what you were talking about, I'm always happy to educate the ignorant.

They have an indigenous SAM system considered equivalent to the earlier models of the Russian S-300, which would still be more than capable of downing modern aircraft.

It's an attempt to copy the S300, not an equivalent. And even modernized Russian S300 with a well trained crews are not effective against modern stealth planes such as F35, F22 etc.

Don't expect light casualties or a quick win on this.

Ill try to find the source but I think people are dramatically underestimating how well prepared SK is for this exact scenario.

Most of the NK artillery (Their main form of offense) is outside of range of Seoul, SK has extremely advanced anti missile systems, as does Japan.

NK would be able to sustain maybe a few hours of shelling before most of their offensive capabilities are wiped out. SK knows exactly where their invasion tunnels are and have them rigged to collapse if anyone tries to move equpiment or soldiers through them, SK has literal kill bots on their side of the border with millions of mines in between. SK keeps jets idling on the runway so they can neutralize any NK incursion immediately.

Apparently NK has "thousands" of artillery pieces aimed at Seoul (SK), so if they get attacked... Seoul feels the heat. Too many to disable them all before they inflict a lot of death and damage, and they do have some anti-air capability which is actually decent according to some reports.

Of course Trump doesn't want any of this. It's just an example of what he has always said: he won't take any options off the table, but negotiations come first.

What do you have to say about the people literally enslaved in that country which are put in conditions very similar to the holocaust? I tend to be generally anti war but this is one of those rare circumstances where I agree with intervention.

What do you have to say about the people literally enslaved in that country which are put in conditions very similar to the holocaust?

A country that has the highest population enslaved for minor offenses where a profit is made from forced labor.... surely the answer is a an invasion on the US by the coalition of the willing.

I tend to be generally anti war but this is one of those rare circumstances where I agree with intervention.

Of coarse, we all know that when things are shitty for a population the best thing to do is to destroy the infrastructure, kill a whole bunch of civilians, cause massive refuge flows and in general brutalize the population. The outcome is cruelly humanitarian.

Nobody has spoken of an invasion. where are you getting that from? Why are you making shit up and being hyperbolic?

I think they are saying, the US is the country with the most enslaved... i.e. private prisons

no i'm pretty sure he's implying that the US has created some impetus for them to invade North Korea to 'free' them, but nothing of the sort has even been theorized.

What is real is that North Korea could attack Guam, and the US could retaliate. Not some US invasion of North Korea because Trump.

I think they're saying that who is the U.S. to judge slavery when we have a "justice" system that is designed to keep people in jail, and we actually have private for-profit prisons.

no - that's what you're trying to say while attributing it to others.

you're also completely skewing the point of the original comment. The point is that nobody in the US has called for an invasion. That is complete hyperbole, but here you are trying to defend it.

rare circumstances

These rare circumstances seem to come around a little too often.

Depends on who you ask, the last conflict I agreed on being justified was WW2.

The US does war by slaughtering civilians by the thousands.

That's what you're asking for. Thousands of murdered innocents.

No, you are making assumptions. A conflict can be handled in many ways but primarily this is a situation that will be much more isolated if is handled now. Waiting for them to actually produce nuclear weapons would cause many more innocent deaths, to add to this. If they do manage this I imagine Russia and China will find much leverage against the West and could lead to a global conflict with nuclear weapons.

Man, this sounds so much like what neocons used to say about Iraq before the invasion.

Not from what I recall, it was all about WMDs. Odd you didn't mention Libya, you would have been a more valid counter argument (I strongly disagreed with that invasion)

No, it was about bringing 'democracy' to oppressed people who were 'suffering' under Saddam after the nuclear WMDs ended being non-existent.

Don't you remember they had people lying and saying the Iraqis were killing babies in Kuwait? It was a lot more lying than just the WMDs.

Yes that is a valid point and will not contest it, my argument lies more in the fact that there are decades of human rights abuses in North Korea in conjunction with a leader which is disregarding agreements made and is attempting to create weapons (is also likely using nuclear materials previous US administrations gave) which could harm the US and it's allies, to make matters worse they have made repeated, direct threats.

What should Trump do? Wait until NK puts a ICBM in Hawaii, Alaska or Cali? Seriously protesting? Really....

Gladiator "At my signal, unleash HELL". I prefer peace. Whether its N Korea, Iran or those that seek to destroy you. Ultimately THEY choose. - S Hannity.

The same thing we have done the past 50 years- "whatever man" and continue on.

NK ain't gonna do shit this is a distraction.

Pretty much.

What should Trump do?

Sign a peace treaty and end the war.

Wait until NK puts a ICBM in Hawaii, Alaska or Cali?

No, demilitarize the border and start normalizing relations with North Korea.

Gladiator "At my signal, unleash HELL". I prefer peace. Whether its N Korea, Iran or those that seek to destroy you. Ultimately THEY choose. - S Hannity.

The only aggressor here is the US which requires using bombs to keep the war economy growing. Hedges was right about meaning in America:

http://thirdworldtraveler.com/War_Peace/War_Gives_Meaning.html

Sign a peace treaty and end the war.

He needs the rest of government to roll back sanctions. It's not something Trump can do by himself. Congress wanted this.

No, demilitarize the border and start normalizing relations with North Korea.

And that is our responsibility? What about China? What about Australia?

The only aggressor here is the US which requires using bombs to keep the war economy growing. Hedges was right about meaning in America:

I'm no fan of the MIC, but the US is not being an aggressor here. Sanctions is not the same as an aggressive stance towards war. You are making things the absolute worst version of reality.

A quote of Sean Hannity quoting Gladiator?

Sure, why not? I liked what he said in it's entirety and didn't want to take credit. Only a small portion was quoted from Gladiator.

What you need to do is stop being a hysterical partisan, and stop pretending you're some kind of neutral figure in every post you make. You're transparent.

"Trump's desire for war against Korea", you say, without mentioning North or South. But moving on... where are you getting this information from that he wants war? They threatened to nuke a US territory. What's he supposed to do? Have a beer summit with Kim Jong Toadboy?

Trump has always said negotiations come first, but he will not take any options off the table. This is the only logical position to take. You don't take any options off the table when someone is threatening to fucking nuke you. This anti-Trump insanity has gone so far that thousands of people on Twitter right now are basically taking North Korea's side just in an attempt to hurt Trump. It's madness.

They threatened to nuke a US territory

I'm calling their bluff. They've been saying this shit for years. They're just playing their role of bogeyman in a grander scheme.

Every source I've read about this, NK says if the US strikes them first, they will retaliate with nuclear weapons.

I agree with you. It has been happening for years. But now Trump is president, so he's Hitler starting WW3 and global nuclear annihilation just for fun.

It's the difference in reaction from the extreme anti-Trumpers (or maybe not so extreme, considering how many people on Twitter are going nuts with this) that annoys me, as if Obama wouldn't have nuked the shit out of NK if they launched something his way during his term. We all know he would. Just trying to be realistic here.

dont bother being realistic. i've come to realize in the past couple months that trump derangement syndrome is definitely a real thing. first i thought it was a joke, but no, it's sadly not. we have a pretty large, gullible and hyper misinformed population being fed massive amounts of clickbait and getting extremely out of touch from reality by it. the over reactions are unreal. trump had 2 scoops of ice cream! and just look at that guy that went on a public twitter meltdown claiming that trump jr meeting with that russian woman about dirt on hillary is the greatest political scandal in US history with nothing even coming close. he was dead serious. unreal. apprantly he never opened a history book? and he's a college professor. i can't even look at my facebook newsfeed anymore, it's beyond depressing such a large portion of our population is simply this easily enraged with no ability to handle their emotions and actually look at the big picture. the networks are making a killing taking advantage of this. my entire iphone news app is trump articles. there is no other news. it's ridiculous.

Oh it's real. TDS, as it will come to be known.

The "two scoops" story was one I had forgotten. Pathetic stuff. But then CNN made a second-by-second analysis of Trump's handshake with Macron in France. I'm not even slightly exaggerating. They did this.

This is CNN: http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/14/politics/a-second-by-second-analysis-of-the-trump-macron-handshake/index.html

Coincidentally, the same CNN guy (Chris Cillizza) who got called out for "fake news" by the Polish president over another handshake: http://people.com/politics/polish-president-fake-news-trump-wife-handshake-snub/

Chris has an obsession with Trump... and handshakes.

Oh, come on, the ice cream thing was funny. It's cute when he has a tantrum because he thinks he's better than anyone else. It's just like when he ordered meatloaf for Chris Christie.

A grown man eating two scoops of icecream = a tantrum? Just making sure.

And I'm sure he gave Chris two servings of mashed potatoes. Probably also took away Chris' spoon so he wouldn't try to get extra ice cream but still very thoughtful on the potato servings.

Thats great and all but its pretty clear you dont know what the fuck youre talking about in this particular instance.

Explain to me how we are protecting our interests by returning this kind of rhetoric back at NK?

Dont blame an actual fuck up on anti Trump rhetoric

its pretty clear you dont know what the fuck youre talking about

then why are you asking me what i think?

if your intent is actually to debate and have a conversation, try not leading with an insult. you will have better results.

then why are you asking me what i think?

Trying to figure out how Trump supporters view this. I want to know what kind of misinfo to expect.

if you want to know how trump supporters feel about this or any other topic, i'd first suggest talking to one in real life, otherwise maybe try r/AskTrumpSupporters

i'd also suggest you maybe try and listen and here them out vs coming in with a i have it all figured out mindset. and back to the insults, the less fucks or name calling / labels like snowflake or whatever else you like to use, the more likely you'll have a productive conversation with another human. respect is a 2 way street. best of luck to you brother! cheers.

Here's the problem. You initially said "dont bother being realistic. i've come to realize in the past couple months that trump derangement syndrome is definitely a real thing." That doesn't sound like you want a discussion; you're just dismissing anyone's arguments by saying they're deranged for not liking Trump.

thank you for your comment.

it might be maybe i don't understand how reddit culture works but i was replying to the initial user's comment and agreeing with him/her that there is a general overreaction to everything trump. i wasn't actually in my head attempting to engage in a discussion with anyone but them. however, i welcome it and thank you again for your input as it's actually constructive. and you're right, that opening line is not inviting for conversation but in my action i was simply supporting that user's comment. should i have direct messaged them?

for me at least, if i wanted a general discussion i would have posted top level and worded it differently. again, maybe i don't understand reddit, i'm fairly new to it and probably fairly older than the median.

as for "you're just dismissing anyone's arguments by saying they're deranged for not liking Trump". i have to politely strongly disagree. i think there is an overall ridiculous overreaction to everything trump in the networks and social settings i navigate. the news, if you can even call it that, is manipulating and capitalizing massively on this. i've never seen more clickbait garbage in my life. it's more TMZ than journalism. it's cheap and more entertainment based. and this is no way suggests that i even support trump, i lean left. i'm just disgusted with the state of our media and more so our population that eats up this garbage. it's pathetic to be honest and depressing regarding our future.

They threatened to nuke a US territory. What's he supposed to do?

Didn't they threaten AFTER his fire and fury tidbit?

North Korea has vowed to exact “thousands-fold” revenge against the US after the UN [unanimously] imposed new sanctions in response to its recent tests of intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Monday: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/07/north-korea-vows-thousands-fold-revenge-on-us-over-sanctions

They didn't threaten military strike against Guam until Trump's fury tidbit.

They just threatened “thousands-fold” revenge before. Trump should've said "Nah-uh... million-fold!", am I right?

Give me a break. It's pathetic when anyone can look up the timeline of events, including yourself. Trump was reacting to his threat after the UN unanimously voted against NK (on Saturday, for those playing along at home).

They just threatened “thousands-fold” revenge before.

That's their regular rhetoric, they were never specific until Trump went Kim Jong himself.

Trump should've said "Nah-uh... million-fold!", am I right?

You ignore them like the previous Presidents then the situation descalates.

Give me a break. It's pathetic when anyone can look up the timeline of events, including yourself. Trump was reacting to his threat after the UN unanimously voted against NK (on Saturday, for those playing along at home).

Exactly he was reacting to a lunatic about a non specific threat who then reacted with a new one, that's how wars start, stop being an apologist for Trump's stupidity.

An apologist for Kim Jong Un calling me an apologist for Trump.

You could get hired at CNN in a second with your razor sharp political commentary.

An apologist for Kim Jong Un calling me an apologist for Trump.

Hahahahaha? You sound exactly like the Neocons who said that anybody who doesn't want war with Saddam is their apologist. Thanks for playing.

You could get hired at CNN in a second with your razor sharp political commentary.

Right, anybody who doesn't want war should work at CNN, the original war channel. Got any more trite to spout?

And now you assume I want war. Keep going. I'll be back later to see what my other stances are, as soon as you let me know.

And now you assume I want war.

It's irrelevant what you want, many Republicans under BUsh didn't want war either but they were so dedicated to their leader that they would repeat the same neocon talking points. You want what they want you to want and you have no choice.

You gathered all of that from me correcting your timeline of events after you jumped in? Fascinating.

Anyway, as I said, back later. Take your time in bringing me up to speed on my wants and opinions.

You gathered all of that from me correcting your timeline of events after you jumped in?

You didn't correct me at all, the threat to Guam came AFTER the fury comment by Donald.

Anyway, as I said, back later. Take your time in bringing me up to speed on my wants and opinions.

I don't have problems with your opinion, I have problem with your facts that you make up to suit your opinion.

N. Korean missile threats worry some on Guam North Korea, which has missiles capable of hitting U.S. territories in the Pacific and possibly mainland USA, has ordered its rocket and long-range artillery units to be combat ready after joint military drills by U.S. and South Korean forces.

April 12, 2013 https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/04/12/north-korea-threats-guam/2077935/

I've had enough with the hysterical antics around this issue. It's because Trump is president now. That's the only reason people are getting all worked up and the media is hyping it.

Not one fucking mention of Obama back in 2013 in that article. Zero. Despite him being ultimately in command of joint military "war games" and whatnot. Compare that with this week's hysteria.

Not one fucking mention of Obama back in 2013 in that article.

Obama wasnt threatening them with nukes

You would have to believe that Obama wouldn't nuke them in retaliation if they nuked Guam. I don't believe that. The threat of retaliation is always there, and has been since WW2 and the development of such destructive weapons. This isn't a new concept we're talking about here. Use Google and restrict your search to pre-2017 if you need to do some research on the topic.

You would have to believe that Obama wouldn't nuke them in retaliation if they nuked Guam.

Maybe but he didn't start the loud mouthed threats first.

Maybe but he didn't start the loud mouthed threats first.

He just played war games with SK in their backyard and swimming pool. At least he didn't use words. Words are bad. War games are good.

See how you become exactly what you accuse me of? An apologist.

He just played war games with SK in their backyard and swimming pool.

Trump is doing the same

At least he didn't use words. Words are bad.

Yes, that's ESCALATION. Threatening is ESCALATION, it's called raising stakes

See how you become exactly what you accuse me of? An apologist.

Blah blah blah. Easy to do that when you setup a strawman, Trump escalated this, own it, stop the constant whataboutism that you guys can't live without.

Trump is doing the same

stop the constant whataboutism

:-)

You should look up what the term means.

Trump has ESCALATED by opening his big mouth, he isn't just using military exercises as a deterrent, he is talking about a pre-emptive attack, that's not even close to what any previous President did.

Escalated from what?

North Korea threatens preemptive nuclear strike over U.S.-South Korean exercises (March 2016) http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/06/asia/north-korea-preemptive-nuclear-strike-threat/index.html

South Korea would launch a preemptive strike against North Korean nukes (February 2013) https://www.pri.org/stories/2013-02-07/south-korea-would-launch-preemptive-strike-against-north-korean-nukes

Bomb North Korea, Before It’s Too Late (New York Times op-ed - April 2013) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/13/opinion/bomb-north-korea-before-its-too-late.html

If Necessary, Strike and Destroy (Washington Post op-ed by former United States Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter - June 2006) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/21/AR2006062101518.html

From above:

Should the United States allow a country openly hostile to it and armed with nuclear weapons to perfect an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of delivering nuclear weapons to U.S. soil? We believe not. The Bush administration has unwisely ballyhooed the doctrine of "preemption," which all previous presidents have sustained as an option rather than a dogma.

That was over 10 years ago. Your sense of history is clouded by hysteria. I told you... do a search on this, restrict the results to pre-2017. I found all of this in under 10 minutes. Do I need to hold your hand?

which all previous presidents have sustained as an option

Trump wasn't giving an option now was he, stop apologizing for his idiocy.

Your sense of history is clouded by hysteria

Which previous President warned to nuke them?

Of course it was an option. It hasn't been done - it's an option. Just stop digging yourself deeper. I gave you plenty to read, and told you how to find more. I understand that a lot of people think politics just started last year... but this stuff has been going on.

Where was the panic and hyped up media when SK threatened to preemptively nuke NK last year after Obama's war games? Where was the talk of Obama provoking WW3? If you can't see the difference in reaction now... I don't know what to tell you. You keep saying I should stop being an apologist, but you don't seem to think that relates to you at all. Look at yourself here, jumping through hoops backwards trying to make it look like Trump is the first to say anything about NK... like they were just over there minding their own business and nobody in the world talked shit before.

It hasn't been done

So you threaten someone with force that will kill them and that's the same as saying nothing? Stop making excuses, this is war rhetoric, it's dangerous.

Obama Threatens Force Against Syria http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/world/middleeast/obama-threatens-force-against-syria.html

Stop acting like this stuff doesn't happen.

And? Syria isn't NK, Syrian war was already in progress as well. Stop the false equivalence.

With every comment you make, I laugh even more at the thought of you calling me an apologist. It's hilarious that you don't see that in yourself.

Oh wow, the personal attack when you can't respond to points along with the obligatory 'I am laughing at you'. Try a new script pal or get some new lines.

• Calls me an apologist multiple times, among other shit-talking

• Gets mad when I laugh, thinks it's a personal attack

You're hilarious, and fragile. There's no denying it.

Calls me an apologist multiple times

You are literally lying to defend a politician, you lied blatantly when you made up the poll numbers, what kind of person does that?

Gets mad when I laugh

I didn't get mad, I explained how this is a common debate tactic when someone loses an argument.

'LOOK AT ME I AM LAUGHING AT YOU' is BS, if you are laughing, you don't tell others.

You lost the argument badly so now you are starting the personal attacks. Next time try not to lie so much, you wont need such piss poor lines of argument then.

What poll numbers?

The ones you lied about, show me one poll where Trump is at 50% and 'rising'. Good luck with your search.

Show me where I said that. Quote me where I talked about polls. Good luck with your search, liar. Unless you can do that, you're everything you accused me of being: a liar and an apologist.

You lose. Finished. Fatality.

Blah blah blah.

Keep the Cheney talk going neocon, keep arguing for war, that's what they want and you are the perfect patsy.

Hahahahah... you couldn't find the quote you made up about me and now you try to change the subject. Hilarious. You're a blatant liar. We're done here. Go read your book about "the art of being right" and then find the fucking quote, liar.

I'll give you some time to "be right" while I do other things. This is making me smile too much that I need a break.

I don't give a shit about finding anything, you all apologists are the same, lie and then personally attack others, hard to tell the difference given the agenda is exactly the same. Suppress all anti-war voices with the Cheney doctrine.

Hahahahah... 16 hours ago and that's all you came up with. Pathetic.

You'd be laughing too if you weren't furiously reading your self-help books about "how to be right", desperately flailing around as the hole you dug yourself with lies comes crumbling down on top of you.

The fact that you still call me a liar, with no proof, after being blatantly caught in a lie yourself, suggests mental illness. We're on record here. All of the comments are available to look through, but you won't find any talk of Trump polls from me, for obvious reasons. You're just a pathetic liar who can't admit defeat.

It's always hilarious to see Trump supporters call others liars, if that's your 'standard' how the heck are you defending a pathological liar like him. Look in the mirror pal.

Didn't you hear me? We're finished here. Get the quote, or GTFO, loser. :-)

Of course we are finished, the moment I asked you about Trump and his lying you had no answer :)

Cognitive dissonance is delicious.

F*ck Guam...just another country where the elite's go to party and rape the local children.

Guam is not a country and if your criteria is what makes a place target worth, they should start with Trump Tower, the original pedo rape tower.

Yeaaaaaa I love accusations without facts

Of course, I can see your post history.

Weird that you still have no interest in presenting facts about your claim

That Guam is not a country?

Heard of google?

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guam

Not your pedo rapes in Trump tower

Are you not aware of Trump flying on Lolita Express and Epstein refusing under oath to deny pedophilia connections to Trump or the fact that Trump was accused of raping a 13 year old. That's just a start.

Trump was alleged to have ridden on the plane once with an unspecified location, odd to think new York billionaires would know each other and be friends and the allegations of the 13 year old provided no evidence and was dropped, so I mean again there's no actual evidence just more baseless allegations look how many women came out all at once and not a single shred of evidence or filed reports anything you can't damn people with ZERO EVIDENCE and it's fully based on opinions or word of mouth

Trump was alleged to have ridden on the plane once with an unspecified location

No, it was confirmed in the courts by Epstein's brother.

allegations of the 13 year old provided no evidence and was dropped

You don't know if there was evidence, a witness was coming forward before it was squashed

look how many women came out all at once and not a single shred of evidence

Except Trump admitting to sexually assaulting women.

This is like you guys saying there is no evidence of Russian collusion when Don Jr admitted to it on his email. LOL

When did he admit sexual assault? I beg you to say the grab em by the pussy line, the wasn't evidence that's why it got squashed you want there to be evidence but fact remains there isn't any, I also don't believe there was anything to do with courts but yes the only confirmation of him on Epsteins plane was from his brother but again there's no mention of where they went where as the Clintons were tied to his island.

This is a joke right? Trump's AG says Trump committed sexual assault

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/313587-sessions-says-grabbing-a-womans-genitals-without-consent-is-sexual

Second, Trump visited Epstein at home, his name was in the blackbook and Trump is on record trying to see teenagers naked (want a citation?)

Yea grabbing a women's genitals is sexual assault, however Trump has never been shown to ever do that he made a comment when you are rich a powerful women would let you, spoiler alert floozies throw themselves at rich powerful men myth busted. Again I will revert back to the fact there has never been anything more than allegations and every one of those allegations had nothiing of substance more than someone saying it happened like 20 years ago and nothing was reported then and it was never a big deal until all these women came out at one time and none of them had anything credible

Trump has never been shown to ever do that

Except all the woman who came forward for doing exactly what he said. What more evidence do you need???????

never been anything more than allegations

LOL, except him admitting to it, what more do you want, a video of the actual assault, is that how things work?

it was never a big deal until all these women came out at one time and none of them had anything credible

AFTER he admitted to it, woman came forward, just like Bill Cosby. Cosby is innocent too in your book?

I'm saying that's not how law works, I can't sit here and say 20 years ago Hillary Clinton groped me, there's no video of it or record by the police or any official are you telling me that didn't happen... and he didn't admit to anything he very specifically said when your rich and powerful women throw themselves at you as if you could grab them by the pussy and theyd let you not at all that he had ever done that

I'm saying that's not how law works, I can't sit here and say 20 years ago Hillary Clinton groped me, there's no video of it or record by the police or any official are you telling me that didn't happen...

Did Hillary admit to groping you on video, are there other witnesses?

very specifically said when your rich and powerful women throw themselves

No, that's not what he said, he said rich and powerful men can do anything, 'you can do anything', he didn't say they let you do anything.

And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything." Direct quote from the transcript

And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything." Direct quote from the transcript

Those are different lines.

The line I quoted was directly before the grab them by the pussy

They are separate lines

Also yes I would like to see the articles on him at Epsteins island not home in the states and also the evidence I'm assuming it's atleast video of him trying to see teenagers naked

https://news.vice.com/article/the-salacious-ammo-even-donald-trump-wont-use-in-a-fight-against-hillary-clinton-bill-clinton

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/timeline-of-trumps-creepiness-while-he-owned-miss-universe-w444634

Did you even read the first article it specifically states "It's obvious Trump wasn't a part of Epsteins illicit activity" he also visited his home in Palm beach not the island that bill Clinton frequented and this was also all multiple years before Epstein had been investigated for all of that it also specifically mentions that

No, that's a quote from one of the lawyers, read up on the other evidence where Trump lied

he also visited his home in Palm beach not the island

Nonsense, you don't know if he visited the island, he lied about visiting Epstein's home before.

Epstein had been investigated for all of that it also specifically mentions that

Why did he refuse to testify it then?

People refuse to testify to things all the time it dosnt mean guilt or literally half the Obama admin would be in jail haha, I can't prove he didn't go to the island but I also don't have anything saying he did, again your trying to make someone guilty because it's not impossible they did something not based on any ACTUAL fact or evidence to show guilt.

Am not trying anything, I am quoting Donald and using the same standard of evidence he used against Clinton.

Hilary Clinton deleted over 30000 emails after they were subpoenaed, she had aides smash devices with hammers after they were subpoenaed and also lied about both, these are both perjury and obstruction of justice on a massive scale. She by definition committed felonies it's far from the same standard of evidence it's intact not even close to the same realm

Nonsense

JORDAN: Did Secretary Clinton know her legal team deleted those e-mails that they kept from us?

COMEY: I don’t believe so.

JORDAN: Did Secretary Clinton approve those e-mails being deleted?

COMEY: I don’t think there was any specific instruction or conversation between the Secretary and her lawyers about that.

JORDAN: Did you ask that question?

COMEY: Yes.

JORDAN: Did Secretary Clinton know that her lawyers cleaned devices in such a way to preclude forensic recovery?

COMEY: I don’t believe she did.

JORDAN: Did you ask that question?

COMEY: Yes.

Lol the Shills downvoted you hard brother. I'm not for war but when someone threatens you threaten them back. You don't pull a Barack and IF IF IF IF IF your way out of everything. NK is just doing this for internal propaganda so they seem big and powerful. The idiots who downvoted you don't seem to understand what a threat is though.

He has maintained his position since the 90's as far as I can find. What always baffles me is how back in the 80s, 90s and early 2000s every news agency and talk show wanted Trumps input, and encouraged presidential runs. What the fuck happened?

Yes, I saw that interview, from Meet The Press in the mid 90s, wasn't it? He has turned out to be surprisingly consistent on the issue of NK over the last 20+ years.

As for why they wanted Trump on TV... ratings. Particularly on political talk shows like that, he's guaranteed to at least give a more interesting interview than 90% of other commentators.

The shills will downvote you. No doubt, some of these same shills who are downplaying the objectively atrocious nature of the NK Communist regime as some kind of Rothschild conspiracy to eliminate NK's hopes of remaining independent of the international banking monopoly (I'm sure they'd be a central asset to the usurious international criminals otherwise, uh huh), are the same pushing the "Russia must die!!!1" nonsense. Utterly absurd how backward this is. To be clear, I'm anti foreign entanglement, even in the case of North Korea, but this is not simply a scenario where I accept something like "we should all just come together and oppose Trump" as an end to the argument.

They threatened to nuke a US territory.

Geopolitics has zero room for your feels or a desire to react to insults. We need to act in the best interests of our country and I can tell you it is not in Americas best interest to get into a war with NK, no matter how trivial the actual fighting would be. It would weaken and destabilize the region, hurt the economies of the countries in the are (Of whom are our allies), unleash millions of malnourished uneducated individuals over borders to neighboring countries and weaken American interests in the area.

NK isnt a threat at all and they know it.

Another one who thinks I'm advocating war, and then goes on to say I don't know what I'm talking about, while also not knowing what I'm talking about.

Explain to me why Trump, or anyone else, should take any options off the table when it comes to NK. Why tell them what you're not going to do? It doesn't mean you're going to do it.

Police officer: "Stop! Freeze! Put the gun down! I'm not going to shoot back if you shoot me but I'd rather you didn't shoot me anyway!"

It just doesn't make sense to limit yourself and telegraph what you will or won't do in a situation like this.

Explain to me why Trump, or anyone else, should take any options off the table when it comes to NK. Why tell them what you're not going to do? It doesn't mean you're going to do it.

I literally did. Read for fucks sake

Police officer: "Stop! Freeze! Put the gun down! I'm not going to shoot back if you shoot me but I'd rather you didn't shoot me anyway!"

Strawman.

It just doesn't make sense to limit yourself and telegraph what you will or won't do in a situation like this.

I don't really understand what you're saying here.

Of course you don't understand, and resort to cliches like "strawman" instead of processing what I've written. Slow down, read it again, and try to understand the analogy of the police officer.

And no, you didn't explain why Trump or anyone else should take any options off the table. You went in to a rant about "feels" and other buzzwords, and implied that leaving your options open is a direct path to war. It's not.

Of course you don't understand,

Ad hominem.

resort to cliches like "strawman" instead of processing what I've written.

What you wrote was a strawman. You invented a scenario that completely misrepresents the situation to support your weak argument. Its not cliche, its the truth.

Slow down, read it again, and try to understand the analogy of the police officer.

Nope, I get it. I just dont think its accurate at all. NK isnt holding a gun and they have no way of inflicting any kind of damage.

And no, you didn't explain why Trump or anyone else should take any options off the table.

I already explained to you that NK is effectively neutered and not a threat to anyone but themselves. I dont know why I have to hold your hand through this, you can figure it out.

Why would we play into their game of threats? Take your emotions out of this. They want us to react like they do and Trump did so wonderfully.

You went in to a rant about "feels" and other buzzwords, and implied that leaving your options open is a direct path to war.

Im not so sure why you have such a hard on for this "Open options" thing. I never said that we should blatantly ignore options just that war and preemtive strikes are retarded and will accomplish nothing.

Youre obviously very new to this situation and the world in general. Read a bit more before commenting next time.

Some reading material for you that I linked for someone else who thinks all of this global shit-talking is a new phenomenon. It's not. You're just overreacting because Trump... and so is the press.

North Korea threatens preemptive nuclear strike over U.S.-South Korean exercises (March 2016) http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/06/asia/north-korea-preemptive-nuclear-strike-threat/index.html

South Korea would launch a preemptive strike against North Korean nukes (February 2013) https://www.pri.org/stories/2013-02-07/south-korea-would-launch-preemptive-strike-against-north-korean-nukes

Bomb North Korea, Before It’s Too Late (New York Times op-ed - April 2013) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/13/opinion/bomb-north-korea-before-its-too-late.html

If Necessary, Strike and Destroy (Washington Post op-ed by former United States Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter - June 2006) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/21/AR2006062101518.html

I'm not endorsing all of this by the way. It's just a reference to show you that this is nothing new. Everyone wants to preempt everyone since WW2. That's how it works.

Some reading material for you that I linked for someone else who thinks all of this global shit-talking is a new phenomenon. It's not. You're just overreacting because Trump... and so is the press.

Well now youre just moving goal posts lol.

First link is an appropriate response, not feeding into their rhetoric and imposing additional sanctions.

Ive already explained that while NK threatens to do this shit they never ever would. They arent suicidal. look at their track record, they routinely make these claims and nothing ever happens. You know why? Because they arent dumb and they want to remain in power. Launching an attack against any of their neighbors or America will result in the end of their country will little to nothing to show for it.

Feel free to actually address this point.

Second link is about a SK response, Im not sure why you would want to move from our geopolitical response compared to theirs. If you cant understand the difference there Im not sure I can help you.

Third link is an OP ed... Not exactly a great resource.

The Korean crisis has now become a strategic threat to America’s core national interests. The best option is to destroy the North Korean missile on the ground before it is launched. The United States should use a precise airstrike to render the missile and its mobile launcher inoperable.

SK is already all over this, we dont need to be policing a situation that is already well under control. Its not Americas problem because NK is no threat to us. Unilateral intervention would piss off every single country involved, a lot. China would be rip shit that America decided to occupy a country they share a border with, like more pissed than we have seen them in decades. It would hurt our economy and theirs, you do know China is a pretty big trade partner, right? How do you think they would recoup their losses? They would fuck our trade deals and we would have to eat it. Same with SK and Japan, the sheer influx of refugees will hurt their economies and again they would look to reclaim some of it by hurting the US. This is why I said you need to take your feelings out of it, geopolitics is about strategic superiority not responding to slights.

Your last link supports my point.

Its from 2006 and talking about imminent strikes against the US. That never happened. Carter is a big interventionist and supports America sticking its guns in places it shouldnt. I mean there is a new dictator in office, many of the same policies but not the same person.

Also read this paragraph

North Korea could respond to U.S. resolve by taking the drastic step of threatening all-out war on the Korean Peninsula. But it is unlikely to act on that threat. Why attack South Korea, which has been working to improve North-South relations (sometimes at odds with the United States) and which was openly opposing the U.S. action? An invasion of South Korea would bring about the certain end of Kim Jong Il's regime within a few bloody weeks of war, as surely he knows. Though war is unlikely, it would be prudent for the United States to enhance deterrence by introducing U.S. air and naval forces into the region at the same time it made its threat to strike the Taepodong.** If North Korea opted for such a suicidal course,** these extra forces would make its defeat swifter and less costly in lives -- American, South Korean and North Korean.

Suicidal course... NK wouldnt commit suicide just to prove a point, they want to remain in power not be forcefully destroyed and killed.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2017/07/06/pre-emptive-us-strike-on-north-korea-could-be-catastrophic/

Mattis told reporters that this week's missile launch didn't threaten the U.S. He said it doesn't change the administration's determination to pursue diplomacy to resolve the nuclear threat, but he suggested North Korea might eventually push too hard.

Mattis said the North's intercontinental missile capability doesn't "in itself bring us closer to war."

Trump, he said, has been clear "we are leading with diplomatic and economic efforts."

Bruce Bennett, a North Korea expert at the Rand Corp., a federally funded think tank, said a fully effective U.S.-led bombing campaign would require precise intelligence about the locations of the North's nuclear and missile storage and launch sites, a number of which are dug into mountainsides.

"We don't know where they all are," he said. "Even if you knew where they all are, you're going to take potentially weeks of bombing to take those things all down."

"If this goes to a military solution, it's going to be tragic on an unbelievable scale. So our effort is to work with the U.N., work with China, work with Japan, work with South Korea to try to find a way out of this situation."

I don't think we even disagree on much... I pointed out that track record of threats from all sides that you're talking about.

I have been saying that shit-talking is normal, and threats of preemptive strikes as far back as the technology existed basically, and I never pushed the idea that NK was going to do anything.

None of what you're saying justifies taking options away though. There could be a scenario. But I doubt the intelligence (data) that officials have anyway, since they're so often wrong, but again this isn't new with Trump.

Like I said, we probably don't disagree on most of this issue.

Another one talking about NK and Guam, in 2013, and not one mention of Obama to say he's starting WW3... they don't even say his name. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/04/12/north-korea-threats-guam/2077935/

None of what you're saying justifies taking options away though

Mostly because I never said that. Im just pointing out why some options are retarded. I mean one option is to launch our entire nuclear arsenal at NK and completely glass the country.

Is that a valid option? Sure by your definition. Will it ever be implemented? Never.

Reread your original post to the OP. You are the one accusing people of taking options off the table, you are the one buying into hysteria and rhetoric. Everyone else is just pointing out how ridiculous it is to buy into that rhetoric and tell NK that threats will be met with "Fire and Fury" when every single person who knows the least bit about this knows that NK will do nothing and telling them shit like that only stokes imaginary fires that will lead to real war.

You simply cannot afford to show emotion at this level of international relations. You cant feed that fire of rhetoric with your own.

Trump not understanding the situation and speaking out of line does no one any good and puts us closer to a confrontation while at the same time making appear weak to the top players in that part of the world. We have a powerful army and could fuck NK into the stone age, everyone knows this.

Talk softly and carry a big stick. We dont need to talk shit because we can actually back up our threats which is why we need to not threaten countries with fire and fury, America should never make a threat, it should act.

Another one talking about NK and Guam, in 2013, and not one mention of Obama to say he's starting WW3... they don't even say his name. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/04/12/north-korea-threats-guam/2077935/

Another one talking about NK and Guam, in 2013, and not one mention of Obama to say he's starting WW3... they don't even say his name.

I dont remember Obama returning empty threats to NK... Thats my point. America is powerful enough to act if it needs to not sling mud at 3rd world dictatorships.

As for your edit. Read it again and note that no one is advocating a strike or war.

No, no words from Obama, but war games / exercises continued. Actions. I just think that's a little more provocative than some harsh words.

No, no words from Obama, but war games / exercises continued.

As we are well within our rights to do so. NK could have responded with an attack but yet once again everyone knows that as soon as they do they cease to be a country.

I just think that's a little more provocative than some harsh words.

The difference being what Obama did, and Bush before him, is a projection of force, a real projection of force. Not a tweet.

Its basically a game of who throws the first punch. The results will be the same but one of those first punches hurts America more than the other.

If NK responded to completely joint exercises with shelling Seoul, they cease to exist. This is best case scenario in a lot of ways, we immediately have the moral high ground and no country would dare stand in Americas way if we were intentionally attacked.

We would have the support of the entire western world.

We can project force without sinking to the level of discourse as a 3rd world dictatorship. It should be well below the president to every even respond to the rhetoric.

TIL letting NK know we will defend ourselves = "desire for war".

These people are unbelievable right?

All I want is to see Mueller fired and arrested and tried in a secret military trial

Why, what has he done?

Covered up Bush Clinton and Saudi involvement in 9/11, took Al Qaeda off the terror watch list, delivered uranium to Russian company in exchange for a briefcase full of cash.

Then why don't you care about any of the other Republican congressmen responsible for those war crimes and worse, instead of or at least as well as the one person looking into the crimes of Trump?

Who said they weren't equally guilty? I didn't. They should all be arrested for their crimes. Stop thinking left vs right. There is one criminal apparatus atop the federal government that permeates throughout the system.

WTF?

You're telling me to stop thinking left and right, but the only person you can think of pinning war crimes on is the one person investigating Trump?

Why did you even bring up Mueller? Why not any of the hundreds of Republican Congressmen that for the PATRIOT Act or for endless war? Why did you mention this guy if you're not 'thinking left vs right'?

I would say that both parties should be tried for their crimes. That'll never happen.

I selected Mueller just to piss you off because you obviously still think in terms of the thises vs the thats.

Ah, there's the old "All I want to do is piss off liberals." It doesn't work, ya know. Any level-headed person is not going to be upset about what a stranger says on the internet.

You got pretty upset considering I singled out your boy

Nope, not upset whatsoever.

Then why bother complaining about Mueller? Just arrest him and then start going down the line. Declare a state of emergency as well.

No, I'm actually not the one complaining and trying to make people angry. That would be you.

I'm not complaining merely presenting a totally reasonable and legal plan

For investigating Trump because he is their almighty ruler and no one should question him.

Yeeeah that's what I was suspecting.

Cripple word economy and cost countless lives?

Not really, NK isn't a threat and this "war" would be over in a week. Their technology is stuck in the 70s. NATO + China would end this very quickly with no loss of life.

And yeah, lets just forget about the millions of enslaved people in NK, it's just Trump that wants this war for no reason...

One of the largest and wealthiest cities in the world is an hour from their border.

And within artillery and range. Even if the drills were perfect and the citizens of Seoul got to their underground bunker there would still be a loss of life.

A preemptive nuclear strike would make NK launch all of their nuclear payload (probably artillery shells with a nuclear warhead). Which would lead SK to be uninhabitable as well as trigger many other countries' nukes and fear of nukes.

Idk how trump will think he can pull this off without endangering our allies, the people who's real lives are at risk.

That's all fix installed artillery, it would be very easy to preemptively destroy all of them.

Easy? Really?

Yeah conventional warfare is what NATO excels at, bombing stationary targets is the easiest part of this.

Fighting insurgents etc is hard.

No, it's not easy, and it would put too much of our military at risk.

Woah, nice arguments there

I'm just saying it's easy for us to say oh, sure, let's bomb them when we're not putting our lives on the line.

Hell yeah! Let's organize a multi-partisan protest. As soon as all our enemies have gathered we can lay waste to them. Lots of liberals need to be purged from Texas, let's do it in Texas!

If you are unable or unwilling to live with people of a different political party, it is you who needs to be purged.

I'm unwilling to live with people who march in the streets chanting for my death. The West will not be safe until the left is utterly destroyed.

Nobody has marched chanting for your death. The west would not exist without the left.

The West will not exist if the left is tolerated any longer.

Any chance you want to try to attach an argument to this nonsense?

Pretty simple. Just look at the left's policies.

I don't think you have a clue what you are talking about. This is not an argument.

Either the left will destroy the West or the West will destroy the left. This has been festering since at least the 60's. Last year it was all brought to light as the left was finally in a situation where they would actually lose an election. Identity politics, open borders for all the brown and black people of the world, protecting black and brown criminals while demonizing working white men, socialist agenda, control and collusion with the MSM, this list gets long.

That's Obama's true legacy. He woke the world up to the true nature of the left. Now that it's been exposed the vast majority of Americans are vehemently against the left. Mark my words, the Democrat Party will not exist after 2018 and liberal will be a dirtier word than communist by then. You will pretend you were never a leftist, just like the rest of your ilk.

There it is, finally! I knew it was going to be about black and brown people.

It always is with you people.

If you think either side will be annihilated, you're drinking the partisan kool-aid. Neither side will "win". The only way we can go on is having 2 sides endlessly fighting or to figure out a way to get along without blaming the "other side".

Thanks for your silly predictions of the future though, that's fun.

Just look at the left's policies.

The ones that most of the West embrace and have used to enhance their nations and citizens lives? You realize "the West" isn't just the USA correct?

You're right. Look at how destructive the left's policies have been in the EU.

Man, so many people are sooo ignorant on what liberal VS conservative really is. These people keep flooding from T_D, a zionist controlled hangout where anti-liberalism is encouraged.

Those outside the U.S. see the lib VS con thing even more retarded because they don't use "liberal and conservative", they tend to be more specific and say left, right, centrist, etc.

These kind of people who keep hating a group (hating liberals, conservatives, LGBT people, poor people flipping burgers, etc.) just keep pushing "muh ideology" divide and conquer. It's just sad. When has this partisan hate fueled sport ever accomplished shit except division? I seriously hate conservativism (anti-worker ideology) but I hope to teach people the truth about pro-establishment conservativism and so called "liberalism". (What the establishment calls liberal and conservative, is actually NEOliberalism and NEOconservativism, although normal conservativism is still shit.)

The elites keep winning if we keep thinking this is a sports match between "da liberalz and da conservativz". While most of the so called lib/con players (politicians) laugh all the way to the bank. Many people still confuse cultural shit with politics.

But I have faith in humanity, hence I'm working on a visual project to show people the truth about politics, the stereotypes, the B.S. talking points, corporate media lies, etc. There is no dominant left wing in the U.S. The word liberal is nonsense and doesn't explain where on the spectrum anyone is. Left liberalism, NEOliberalism, classical liberalism....these ideologies take the liberal name and yet they're all so different.

Political science is the way to see past the corporate media's stereotypical identity politics agenda of divide and conquer. I hope the person you responded to, wakes the hell up and stops hating on people he [currently] doesn't agree with.

Even the alt right (alt establishment) supporters want what the real left want.....jobs, pro-worker policies, etc. It's the alt right leaders (Alex Jones, Trump, Breitbart, Fox News, T_D shill mods, etc.) that are zionist shills.

I don't think any of us is truly enlightened, but I agree with the rest.

Good luck with your project.

Thanks dude. Yeah, I agree, I just meant somewhat more enlightened with the truth. (Moving from X level of ignorance to slightly better level of ignorance lol.) Everyone, even geniuses, are ignorant in some way even if they've worked at something for ages.

I don't at all mean to be a smartass. xD

No worries, you didn't come off as a smart ass.

Great post.

I've tried to understand this "new age" as well. I'm an Australian and US politics bewilders me; it's like TPTB have convinced the TRADITIONAL left (the workers and generally soaking, the masses) that progression is their enemy. Therefore the traditional left is now the right. At least that's what the US looks like from the outside.

The traditional right, is the powerbase of TPTB. They have the money, they are the actual "globalists" (they instituted the neoliberal economic movement - known in the U.S. as Reagonomics). They increase profits by moving operations to third world shitholes. Yet now, the conservatives think globaists are left...bizarre.

However TPTB architectured this deliberately, they created extreme left culture and extreme right culture, they lay both sides media. My theory is this is all down to dumb down general society and allow most people to simply get lost in white noise.

Hi, thanks for the reply. You're right. Corporate media stereotypes like implying "left wingers are all feminists" which is nonsense. I'm a center left humanist (although I don't care much for ideologies, if something sounds wrong, I reject it, whatever the ideology).

Some people unfortunately don't see their own cherry picking. Some people BELIEVE the corporate media when they lie, calling Bernie Sanders a "dictator communist/dictator socialist/anti-business/state capitalist/lunatic/sexist bernie bro/unpopular with minorities/etc." but then they DISbelieve the anti-Trump stuff. The partisan mentality is still there, in denial. (IMO, Trump/Clinton are both shills, I don't really care about the Russia distraction.) Or maybe it's just the shills who deviate from common sense, I don't know.

Real progression is not the weird crap that the establishment push. Progress is about making things more equal than the messed up anti-worker history humanity has had. TPP is the opposite of progress for example. Just because it's new, doesn't mean it's progressive. I think some people INcorrectly assume new deranged ideas = progressive. But the new kids on the block, NEOliberalism and NEOconservativism are definitely anti-progress for workers.

Conservativism = conserving a low waged population. (Other interpretations could be "conserving the way it was before the unions gave us workers' rights) Without the unions, we'd all be working ALL WEEK, NO WEEKENDS. Unions are US, the PEOPLE/workers (there is always a possibility of groups getting compromized but unions are usually good protectors of workers). Corporations are THEM, the parasite elite beurocrats/elite bankers controlling the financial system and politicians.

Liberal is a pointless adjective. It's about liberty, but liberty for who? Many ideologies claim the name.

• Classical liberalism (that's the free market Laissez-faire crap right?) would be liberty for the corporations to screw us ALL (workers, consumers, etc.) by removing all regulations (safety, ethics, worker conditions and pay, etc.) Corporate dictatorship. Sort of like now, but with the INSANE TPP shit.

• Left liberalism (a very general region of the spectrum, includes democratic socialism, social democracy and to an extent centrism among a few others) is liberty for the workers/people, by protecting workers and awarding them what they are owed for their labor (not necessarily ALL fruits of their labor, but at least a more reasonable amount). Socialism/capitalism CAN co-exist in a better ratio. But elites push "capitalism baby!" and "eew socialism".

• NEOliberalism, is one of those ideologies (like conservativism, and NEOconservativism) that champion crony capitalism. Favoritist to corporations. Free tax money to Google, Apple, etc. etc. etc.

U.S. political spectrum:

http://i.imgur.com/Zx49sJD.png

Sorry for long post, wasn't sure on what to expand specifically on. :P

This is not what a person who follows these rules would say.

Im both willing and able. But I wont stand by as someone talks about purging half the country. I don't care if he thinks hes being funny or serious.

Nice box you have there, it is to small to contain me though.

Well then you're going to be wasting a lot of time by not "Standing by." There's no arguing with those people, right or left. We need them in our society to show us that we can never ever purge a certain belief. I understand where you are coming from but I think you don't understand them. They certainly won't understand you

What you do not seem to understand is that some of the "conservatives" actually favor war in general and this war against NK in particular.

That's sad.

Call it "trumps desire for war"....yeah, that'll work......maybe you should rethink your day job.

Trumps desire for war!?!?!?

"If NK threatens us again they're fucked" (knowing full well NK sends us empty threats daily for the past couple decades at least)

Yeah he wants war.

Why is everyone acting like this wasn't an eventuality? Haven't NK been flexing for literally decades about how eventually they were gonna smash up some Western Civilization? And haven't tehy been working on that, tirelessly, day in and day out for those past decades? And doesn't it stand to reason that somewhere along that timeline they're gonna develop something that causes worry?

Now, I'm not a warmonger by any means, but sometimes these types of problems arise and need to be dealt with and I'd rather we deal with them before we get dealt with. I don't want a nuke hitting Seattle to be the impetus needed.

NK has been flexing for literal decades about how eventually they were gonna smash up some Western Civilization?

That rhetoric isnt meant for us, its meant for the NK civilians.

And haven't tehy been working on that, tirelessly, day in and day out for those past decades? And doesn't it stand to reason that somewhere along that timeline they're gonna develop something that causes worry?

Lol, they havent been working tirelessly, they are barely a functioning state. Even if they develop a nuke capable of fitting on the head of a missile they will never be able to hit N America, they have to go through 5+ of the worlds most advanced missile defense systems from multiple countries.

NK knows that as soon as they attack their country will be wiped off the map. No one can defend them if the lash out at America and they know it.

Its 100% posturing and Trump playing into the "raining fire" fire rhetoric does nothing but validate the NK position (At least to its citizens and military).

Now, I'm not a warmonger by any means, but sometimes these types of problems arise and need to be dealt with and I'd rather we deal with them before we get dealt with. I don't want a nuke hitting Seattle to be the impetus needed.

Just to reiterate it will never ever happen... Unless we hit first. If we preemptively strike NK they will have no options left but to use any means to hit us back. If we hit first we lose the moral high ground and we will force them into a corner where they will use any nukes they have. Then Asia will be pissed because we just destabalized the entire eastern part of that continent, damaged SK, China and Japans economies which they will not be cool with.

Best way to handle NK is with counter propaganda. Show the people that the west is prospering and not the villains.

That rhetoric isn't meant for us, its meant for the NK civilians

I think the rest of your statement is well reasoned, but... can you prove or substantiate this part in any meaningful way, or is it just an opinion?

Kim and most of the higher up in the NK government are all educated abroad. Kim spent years in Switzerland being educated, him and his generals know exactly how out gunned they are.

If they know exactly what the odds are and how fucked they would be if they attempted a military action against anyone why give us this insane "Raining fire" rhetoric?

Because they can turn around to their under educated, malnourished brainwashed society and say "Look! I told the Americans we will rain nuclear fire down and burn their country until it sinks below the ocean and they do NOTHING! WE ARE STRONG AND THE FACT THEY DO NOTHING IN RETURN PROVES HOW STRONG NORTH KOREAN LEADERSHIP IS! THEY FEAR US AND OUR MASSIVE TOTALLY LEGIT MILITARY!"

Whereas in every other part of the world we all know how insane that sounds and how impossible it would be. We dont respond because it would be like a toddler telling you he is going to punch your head off so hard its going to hit the moon. No one wins if you feed into that nonsense.

If you don't wish to feed into it, why the hell would you put up with

I mean, I understand your rationale, but you could just as easily say, they are continuously using these empty "boy who cried wolf" threats which nobody takes seriously as a cover to constantly advance their own military arsenal (which is substantial) with little oversight.

Both theories are speculative and not arguments in and of themselves.

If you don't wish to feed into it, why the hell would you put up with

Because it doesnt affect us at all. You have to remember that in geopolitics personal feelings and reacting to insults based on emotions is the one thing you do not do.

Every threat needs to be handled objectively. Objectively NK isnt a threat to us at all.

as a cover to constantly advance their own military arsenal (which is substantial) with little oversight.

NKs military aresenal isnt substantial in the least. They might have bodies to throw at a problem, 5'5 poorly trained with obsolete weaponry bodies.

and a mini nuke.

Lol, you speak as though Trump is the one detonating nukes and launching missiles at Japan.

How would talk Kim down from frying Seoul? Ask him pretty please?

You act like Kim actually launched missiles or something. If you're going to have an opinion on international relations you need a cool head and thicker skin.

He didn't test ICBM that hit just off the coast of Japan?

Yes, let's pretend that "launch at" meant "test". No one will see through that.

Wow, you need to chill out and get over yourself dude.

"Chill out" says the guy freaking out.

I am? Where?

Lol, you speak as though Trump is the one detonating nukes and launching missiles at Japan.

How would talk Kim down from frying Seoul? Ask him pretty please?

That's freaking out?

All I said was that there's a dictator launching nuclear missiles at our allies and we need to use force to get him to stop.

But hey, at least we're no longer talking about how you tried to play off "launching missiles at" as a valid substitute for "test".

Put words in your own mouth junior, leave mine out of it.

They did launch a missile at Japan. It was a test missile but it was clearly an act of aggression. Unless you feel otherwise?

Yeah I would have said fear mongering or being so ignorant of the situation as it stands as to be useless to the discussion.

What's to fear monger about? NK makes threats against everyone, tests nukes without repercussions, and tests ICBMs in Japan's waters.

That's not fear mongering, that's literally what NK has been about for years.

That's not fear mongering, that's literally what NK has been about for years.

Exactly. Why would they sacrifice their country to do no damage to America?

As soon as they attack anyone their country gets wiped off the map.

Removing NK will fuck the economies of our allies around them.

Because they're a mentally unhinged nuclear power dieing to be taken seriously on the world stage?

You should also resume calling everyone an idiot and demonstrating your peerless take on geopolitics. It's really impressive and endears me to you.

Because they're a mentally unhinged nuclear power dieing to be taken seriously on the world stage?

No they arent. Nuclear power? Yes, kind of. Unhinged? Yeah, kind of. They know exactly what game theyre playing and its all very intentional. They arent acting crazy because they are crazy, they are acting crazy because its been working. They have been autonomous for 50+ years playing the crazy card, thats a track record better than most dictatorships.

The fire and brimestone rhetoric isnt for the West, per se its for their own population. When they make bat shit insane claims as to their capabilities and threaten us with those (We will nuke your continent into the sea for example) we know thats bullshit and they know they arent able to. What it does do is give them propaganda material to use, now they can turn to their civilians and say "Look at how powerful we are! I told them we would rain hellfire down on them and they did nothing!"

The last thing they want is to be taken 100% seriously. If we took them seriously they lose their crazy card.

You should also resume calling everyone an idiot and demonstrating your peerless take on geopolitics. It's really impressive and endears me to you.

What you wrote was idiotic. Im not going to apologize for hurting your sensibilities so grow up and get thicker skin.

While I appreciate you playing the victim card AssNasty a quick peak at your profile shows you are just as much of a cunt as I am.

You're actually more of a prolapsed anus than cunt.

You're actually more of a prolapsed anus than cunt.

Ill have to defer to your immense knowledge of prolapsed anuses in this case.

And people have to actually cross me first or be stupidly offensive to gain my ire.

/r/iamverybadass

Its kind of like North Korea, try to sound badass and it comes off like a toddler.

Your just a dick for the sake of being a dick.

*You're

Lol, adorable.

u/TUMS_FESTIVAL is a Trump Teen who lies about it on Reddit for fun BTW.

How would you talk Kim down from frying Seoul?

Youre an idiot if you think SK isnt the most prepared to deal with NK.

Youre an idiot if you didnt know SK, Japan have some of the most advanced missile defense systems.

Youre an idiot if you think NK will actually use a nuke preemptively.

Youre an idiot if you think NK is a threat to any American interests.

Youre an idiot if you think NK will do anything at all to upset the status quo.

Youre an idiot if you think NK is ignorant to their position in terms of military power.

Well, you're a bucket of cheery assholes aintcha

Remember geopolitics doesnt give a shit about your feels.

At the end of the day decisions need to be made using cold hard facts with us coming out on top. It doesnt matter is Kim said he fucked your mom or if he threatens to rain hellfire down on his enemies, this is calculate and you fell for it, because of your feels.

How would you talk Kim down from frying Seoul? Ask him pretty please?

Lets revisit this statement. NK might and this is the smallest of mights, be able to shell parts of SK for an hour or two before their ability to attack is neutralized. Seoul is outside of most NK artillery and Seoul citizens train for this exact scenario. Some infrastructure damage is about the best outcome for engaging SK.

They know this, SK knows this, we know this.

So why would they sacrifice their entire country to maybe bruise SK? As soon as they attacked their country ceases to exist.

Do you honestly believe the rhetoric Kim says? Youre an idiot.

Do you really think NK is suicidal and is willing to destroy a decades old dictatorship to annoy the western world? It would be like having a neighbor that you hate and you throw a rock through his window knowing full well he will come over, shoot you in the face and burn your house down if you do. So is it worth throwing that stone?

They are zero threat to anyone and dumbasses who are ignorant to very basic facts about the situation say shit like you did.

And the test missile that came within 200 miles of Japan?

Also what's up with your aggression here? You didn't get a hug this morning or something?

And the test missile that came within 200 miles of Japan?

Well 230 miles, but whos counting... Once more I dont think you realize how advanced our systems are vs theirs. Seconds after that launch it was most likely tracked by multiple countries who all had the ability to shoot it down if it were going to hit anywhere sensitive.

Yeah that was a real dick move but its by design that they do this shit. NK knows exactly what its doing when they act like this.

Also what's up with your aggression here? You didn't get a hug this morning or something?

Im just pointing out how retarded your argument is, dont take it personal. Just try not to make so many assumptions on things you have no info on.

So two weeks later and a middle sailed over japan from NK. Is there a reason either the SK defenses or the Japanese defenses didn't shoot it down? I know that they didn't announce a satellite launch bs story like they usually do, so an unexpected ICBM just flew through their airspace with no resistance. Not trying to be a dick, just genuinely curious...

So two weeks later and a middle sailed over japan from NK. Is there a reason either the SK defenses or the Japanese defenses didn't shoot it down?

Yeah, they didnt have to.

Multiple countries and multiple missile defense systems were tracking it but no one wants to reveal how capable they are at shooting down missiles unless they absolutely have to.

Japan doesnt want Russia and China to know how quickly they can react, the type of system they have and how capable those systems actually are. They also dont want NK to get any kind of idea about how these systems work or what they are capable of.

unexpected ICBM just flew through their airspace with no resistance.

Because there was no threat, if that missile was going to hit mainland Japan it would be dropped by any number of the missile defense systems it had to travel through.

Modern missile defense systems are pretty good. The only way to get through is to either spam so many rockets it overwhelms the defense system (Which NK will never be able to do) or to use those extremely advanced mach 30 ICBMs of which only a handful of countries have and is well outside of NK tech. Those puppies travel so fast they turn the atmosphere in front of them into plasma and most modern missile defense systems dont have the ability to intercept something moving that fast. I actually wouldnt be surprised if there were defense systems for those but again no one wants to show their hand in terms of how capable they actually are.

So essentially NK is neutered and every country doesnt want to share just how capable they are at defending themselves.

Don't for get the entire world is coming together for fun and games on KJU's back porch in 6 months...

South Korea Winter Olympics Feb. 2018

If you want to talk about corruption, the IOC is terribly corrupt. Who thought South Korea would be a good place for the Olympics?

Idk SK seemed nice when my family went there.

It was a great place for the 1988 olympics, why is it a bad place now? Seoul is a beautiful city.

Oh great, more one-upmanship between idiots with nukes. Those lovely new sanctions are doing exactly what they were supposed to do by the look of it. I'm guessing thats why they included all 3 countries in a "shotgun" strategy just incase one or two didn't take the bait. You can always rely on the North Koreans I guess. Fucking morons inching the world closer to armageddon. At least the republicans are honest about being warmongering stooges controlled by the MIC, the democrats foaming at the mouth with bloodlust further cements my choice of demexiting. I pray to jebus a third party comes along to end this charade. We need a billionaire backer to help primary everyone possible in 2018 and replace them with anti-war candidates (regardless of political party).

I like your idea for a protest (would be the first in a while that is not astroturfed crap). Good luck getting any play in the media though.

Yes let's leave North Korea people to starve to death till Kim has a kid and they continue the trend of tyranny for another generation. I personally want Kim removed from power, but hey let's allow them to wipe South Korea and Japan off the face of the map so we just avoid war. /s

That strategy has been of dubious worth to date. I do wonder why people insist on continuing the same thing over and over again with little to no idea of their previous failings.

The Democratic and Republican parties always want war because it delivers money to them from Lockeed General Dynamics etc etc.

And to distract from the negative press....

Agreed. Something is definitely fucky about all this.

Seen this?

Trump doesn't want this war you idiot, he's just responding the only way he knows how; peacocking and brute force. As many of the top voted comments will tell you, surrendering your nuclear weapons will lead to assured destruction. OBAMA LEGALIZED STATE PROPAGANDA. WASHINGTON POST HAS A $600MIL CONTRACT WITH THE CIA. WASHINGTON POST IS CLAIMING THAT NK IS GOING TO NUKE GUAM. IT'S ALL BULLSHIT THEATRE

Desire for war? Obviously you haven't read his tweets where he plainly states he hopes to not ever use his nuclear weapons.

It's not trump. It's the people he outrigged during the " election".

It ain't "Trump's" desire, broseph. It's the deep state's.

This isn't to say that Trump isn't an accomplice and isn't also liable. He is. However, the focus should never necessarily be on the emblem. It should be on the vehicle behind the emblem.

If you really want to stop these kinds of unnecessary wars from happening, then you have to look much deeper than the figurehead.

To all these people that are trying to put the blame on a certain presidential registration: Stop. It really doesn't matter who's fault it is anymore. That's not going to change anything. We need to join together, regardless of how we identify politically, and like this post says, do everything in our power to prevent any possibility of a pointless and deadly war from happening. Everyone needs to get off their bullshit and focus on the more important issues.

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist." a quote from President Dwight D Eisenhower's speech in departing the presidency.

Let's do everything in our power to aboud a needless war.

Like standing down against the orders of your generals?

NK is a threat to humanity and needs to be wiped off the face of the Earth, it shall be named the North Korean Sea

Trump wouldn't want a war I don't think. It could get messy and out of hand. Nations do dangerous things when cornered.

I think he just wants a new issue to point his supporters at. Hence the whole fire and fury speech.

WTF?

You're telling me to stop thinking left and right, but the only person you can think of pinning war crimes on is the one person investigating Trump?

Why did you even bring up Mueller? Why not any of the hundreds of Republican Congressmen that for the PATRIOT Act or for endless war? Why did you mention this guy if you're not 'thinking left vs right'?

I don't think that you can say the same about Russia's involvement to Ukraine.

Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons in 1994. Russia was also promised that NATO would not expand eastwards around that same time. Over time, NATO broke that promise and converted all ex-Warsaw Pact countries to their Cold War-era military alliance, eventually knocking on Ukraine's door around 2012-2013.

Then came the Western-backed coup of 2014, which was clearly instigated by Western intelligence and friendly Ukrainian Neo-Nazi groups.

Russia is also dealing with being on the other side of the greatest military buildup since World War Two along Russia's western border. The West has also built an anti-missile shield in Romania AND installed missiles in all of these new Eastern European NATO countries. Why provoke Russia like this? What is to be gained?

I'm no cheerleader of Putin, but it is clear who the aggressors in Eastern Europe are right now.

"Chill out" says the guy freaking out.

Sure, why not? I liked what he said in it's entirety and didn't want to take credit. Only a small portion was quoted from Gladiator.

Yeah conventional warfare is what NATO excels at, bombing stationary targets is the easiest part of this.

Fighting insurgents etc is hard.

You're actually more of a prolapsed anus than cunt.

Ill have to defer to your immense knowledge of prolapsed anuses in this case.

And people have to actually cross me first or be stupidly offensive to gain my ire.

/r/iamverybadass

Its kind of like North Korea, try to sound badass and it comes off like a toddler.

Your just a dick for the sake of being a dick.

*You're

Neither person who said NATO would spread eastward had the authority to make that agreement. That would be like holding Trump legally responsible for not repealing the ACA even though he said he would

These people are unbelievable right?

Yes that is a valid point and will not contest it, my argument lies more in the fact that there are decades of human rights abuses in North Korea in conjunction with a leader which is disregarding agreements made and is attempting to create weapons (is also likely using nuclear materials previous US administrations gave) which could harm the US and it's allies, to make matters worse they have made repeated, direct threats.