anyone paying attention to n korea threatening to nuke america?

[IDBillzFan]

Wow that 2nd to last post from LA was so coocoo for cocoa pufffs even meazza had to correct it on my behalf (sort of anyway). Here's a good summary of how we ended up in this predicament:

 

http://www.salon.com...tors_picks=true

 

For the partisan crowd I'll screen it in advance, the author....

... Liked bill clintons approach

.... Cites bush-cheney derailing it for the worse

.... Cites bush-rice for getting it back on track

.... Thinks obama-hillary were incompetent

 

And yet still no explanation of how the situation will resolve itself if the US leaves SK.

 

I have dirty socks smarter than you.

[OCinBuffalo]

But when the leadership of a rogue nation has no predilection towards self-preservation, the psychological barrier that M.A.D. represents is no longer an inhibitor.

1. While we are at it: how is this crazy group of people who are trying to get a nuke, any different than the crazy group of people in Iran? How many "rational actors" in either group? And, define "rational"? Does "pragmatic" fit anywhere?

 

2. Moving on to the JtSP idiocy contaminating this thread....I suppose if we left both crazy groups to their own devices...they'd suddenly cease their nuclear ambitions. Right, just like if we didn't have any cops, there'd be no crime.

 

It is truly fascinating that we have otherwise intelligent and educated people...who can't pricess this simple reality. It's like a single-issue retardation.

 

But, no, not really. Here's what it really is: when engaged in other things, like taking a Series 7 exam, they think.

 

When talking about war, they emote.

 

3. War doesn't get prevented by things like the UN. It's far past time we pulled the plug on it.

 

How many wars have we had AFTER its creation? Just as many if not more. England fought Argentina...over a bunch of shitbird islands. If ever there was a war that the UN should have been capable of stopping, if it was worth anything at all, it was that one.

 

If a fight broke out at an international table tennis game in Hong Kong, who would be able to stop if first? You or the UN? Who would you hire to make sure fights don't happen at international table tennis games? You, or the UN?

 

That's right, you. You because: you could get on a plane, check into the hotel, eat a light lunch, get to the venue, and crack heads, all in the time that it would take for the UN to decide who would be speaking first. And, you'd hire you, because you could do the job at 1/10th the price, still retire with tons of cash in the bank, and you know you'd have a 10x better chance at being successful.

Edited April 6, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[truth on hold]

 

1. While we are at it: how is this crazy group of people who are trying to get a nuke, any different than the crazy group of people in Iran? How many "rational actors" in either group? And, define "rational"? Does "pragmatic" fit anywhere?

 

2. Moving on to the JtSP idiocy contaminating this thread....I suppose if we left both crazy groups to their own devices...they'd suddenly cease their nuclear ambitions. Right, just like if we didn't have any cops, there'd be no crime.

 

It is truly fascinating that we have otherwise intelligent and educated people...who can't pricess this simple reality. It's like a single-issue retardation.

 

But, no, not really. Here's what it really is: when engaged in other things, like taking a Series 7 exam, they think.

 

When talking about war, they emote.

 

3. War doesn't get prevented by things like the UN. It's far past time we pulled the plug on it.

 

How many wars have we had AFTER its creation? Just as many if not more. England fought Argentina...over a bunch of shitbird islands. If ever there was a war that the UN should have been capable of stopping, if it was worth anything at all, it was that one.

 

If a fight broke out at an international table tennis game in Hong Kong, who would be able to stop if first? You or the UN? Who would you hire to make sure fights don't happen at international table tennis games? You, or the UN?

 

That's right, you. You because: you could get on a plane, check into the hotel, eat a light lunch, get to the venue, and crack heads, all in the time that it would take for the UN to decide who would be speaking first. And, you'd hire you, because you could do the job at 1/10th the price, still retire with tons of cash in the bank, and you know you'd have a 10x better chance at being successful.

Great, now the other one who's....

.... for cocoa puffs

[OCinBuffalo]

Great, now the other one who's....

.... for cocoa puffs

Great. More emoting.

 

Rather than form an argument, you'd rather post youtbue links...that aren't even funny?

 

I'll be third person, asking for the 5th time:

 

How will this situation resolve itself if the US leaves Korea?

[DC Tom]

And yet still no explanation of how the situation will resolve itself if the US leaves SK.

 

I have dirty socks smarter than you.

 

But if you read the Salon article he posted, it makes it perfectly clear that the DPRK's virulent anti-US rhetoric is a new development, and the roots of the conflict are well outside the scope of US involvement and would persist after we left.

 

JtSP clearly doesn't read much.

[OCinBuffalo]

Well, he may read, but does he comprehend?

 

I am seeing a trend on this board where the comprehend part is slipping. I will have to make use of that.....as I did with the GG troll.

Edited April 6, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[4merper4mer]

Link

 

We are being called on the carpet by China like children and now we are delaying a long planned test so a friggin teenager in Pyongyang won't get mad. How much more of a LOS GATOS foreign policy could we possibly have. Seriously, maybe we could beg for forgiveness or something.

[B-Large]

So the US is being cautious when dealing with a regime they know little about since the Old Man died, who is nuclear, and that is weakness?

 

What would be your course of action?

[OCinBuffalo]

So the US is being cautious when dealing with a regime they know little about since the Old Man died, who is nuclear, and that is weakness?

 

What would be your course of action?

There is a giant difference between "cautious" and "policy that is willfully ignorant of the facts and/or based on Woodrow Wilson, college professor-based weakness". Both may produce the same result, at a point in time. However, over time, the first can get results, while the next ensures failure until it is corrected.

 

Or, ask yourself: how did a guy with a campaign slogan of "he kept us out of war" also be the guy who committed America to WW1? Answer: pretentiousness, followed by correction of pretentiousness.

 

The course is plain as day: send in at least one carrier group and sonic boom the hell out of them for 3 weeks. Do not fire even if fired upon. Just scare em and run. Break some windows. That's plenty "cautious". Don't fly over land beyond 5 miles. Yes, some planes may be shot down. Yes, somebody might be captured. Those are the risks you take, when the alternative is: all out war, or, allowing this turd to "win", which will only embolden him. = we will almost definitely be fighting this war in 2 years, instead only possibly fighting it now. Or...we will be conceding the game to China and North Korea, which will force Japan, South Korea, and every other Asian country, including Russia, to upgrade their readiness and military.

 

Asia will turn into an armed camp w/ nukes. Great. Your "peace through weakness" plan will ultimately lead to almost certain war. Millions will die, and so will our economy, all so that you can say you were "cautious"? What exactly is your pretension worth? Should we let this happen, and then try to correct it?

 

No. Our old standby of the "proportional response", which we got away from with Iraq, is the answer. (Surprising too...as Dick Cheney was one of the inventors of the proportional response, see: Qaddafi in the 80s)

 

Proportionl response = "how much strength do we apply"? It is never "let's apply weakness".

Edited April 8, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[4merper4mer]

So the US is being cautious when dealing with a regime they know little about since the Old Man died, who is nuclear, and that is weakness?

 

What would be your course of action?

 

It sure as stojan wouldn't be to put a halt to totally unrelated important national defense tests and cower in the corner.

 

Your definition of acting cautiously sure is strange. I would call it acting pussily.

[We Come In Peace]

There is a giant difference between "cautious" and "policy that is willfully ignorant of the facts and/or based on Woodrow Wilson, college professor-based weakness". Both may produce the same result, at a point in time. However, over time, the first can get results, while the next ensures failure until it is corrected.

 

Or, ask yourself: how did a guy with a campaign slogan of "he kept us out of war" also be the guy who committed America to WW1? Answer: pretentiousness, followed by correction of pretentiousness.

 

The course is plain as day: send in at least one carrier group and sonic boom the hell out of them for 3 weeks. Do not fire even if fired upon. Just scare em and run. Break some windows. That's plenty "cautious". Don't fly over land beyond 5 miles. Yes, some planes may be shot down. Yes, somebody might be captured. Those are the risks you take, when the alternative is: all out war, or, allowing this turd to "win", which will only embolden him. = we will almost definitely be fighting this war in 2 years, instead only possibly fighting it now. Or...we will be conceding the game to China and North Korea, which will force Japan, South Korea, and every other Asian country, including Russia, to upgrade their readiness and military.

 

Asia will turn into an armed camp w/ nukes. Great. Your "peace through weakness" plan will ultimately lead to almost certain war. Millions will die, and so will our economy, all so that you can say you were "cautious"? What exactly is your pretension worth?

 

No. Our old standby of the "proportional response", which we got away from with Iraq, is the answer. (Surprising too...as Dick Cheney was one of the inventors of the proportional response, see: Qaddafi in the 80s)

 

Proportionl response = "how much strength do we apply"? It is never "let's apply weakness".

So many words to say absolutely nothing. Awesome work as usual.

[OCinBuffalo]

So many words to say absolutely nothing. Awesome work as usual.

Nothing?

 

Read it again. Now, moron.

 

Like I said above, reading comprehension is slipping.

 

Perhaps I should write it this way:

 

"See, liberals are right. We need to do this the liberal way: only apply enough strength to show we are serious, but no so much that we escalate things."

 

Then of course, my post would be prodound and useful, wouldn't it, you giant d-bag?

Edited April 8, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[B-Large]

There is a giant difference between "cautious" and "policy that is willfully ignorant of the facts and/or based on Woodrow Wilson, college professor-based weakness". Both may produce the same result, at a point in time. However, over time, the first can get results, while the next ensures failure until it is corrected.

 

Or, ask yourself: how did a guy with a campaign slogan of "he kept us out of war" also be the guy who committed America to WW1? Answer: pretentiousness, followed by correction of pretentiousness.

 

The course is plain as day: send in at least one carrier group and sonic boom the hell out of them for 3 weeks. Do not fire even if fired upon. Just scare em and run. Break some windows. That's plenty "cautious". Don't fly over land beyond 5 miles. Yes, some planes may be shot down. Yes, somebody might be captured. Those are the risks you take, when the alternative is: all out war, or, allowing this turd to "win", which will only embolden him. = we will almost definitely be fighting this war in 2 years, instead only possibly fighting it now. Or...we will be conceding the game to China and North Korea, which will force Japan, South Korea, and every other Asian country, including Russia, to upgrade their readiness and military.

 

Asia will turn into an armed camp w/ nukes. Great. Your "peace through weakness" plan will ultimately lead to almost certain war. Millions will die, and so will our economy, all so that you can say you were "cautious"? What exactly is your pretension worth?

 

No. Our old standby of the "proportional response", which we got away from with Iraq, is the answer. (Surprising too...as Dick Cheney was one of the inventors of the proportional response, see: Qaddafi in the 80s)

 

Proportionl response = "how much strength do we apply"? It is never "let's apply weakness".

 

Is seems to me they are trying to determine if The Boy plays the same MO as his father, bat pans, make a hissy, only to in the end be more rhetoric and posturing that anything. They know who Dad was, not quite so sure who the kid is... does it make sense to antagonize a a threat, when all along it was going to be a threat anyway? NK has a history of this kind of ****.

 

Now Iran on the other hand, an emerging nuclear state is much more concerning my my opinion. Were not sure how they behave, but you have to give creedence to the president saying they want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

 

I don't think its weakness or kitty... heck, were dropping ordinance on targets with Drones constantly...the Presdient has a kill list... I don't think anyoe questions the American miltary might... what they may question is the Americans Publics willingness to spend another 5-10 years fighting wars on two fronts again as we march lock-step into national default.

[We Come In Peace]

Nothing?

 

Read it again. Now, moron.

 

Like I said above, reading comprehension is slipping.

 

Perhaps I should write it this way:

 

"See, liberals are right. We need to do this the liberal way: only apply enough strength to show we are serious, but no so much that we escalate things."

 

Then of course, my post would be prodound and useful, wouldn't it, you giant d-bag?

It would be prodound. Very, very, very prodound. Much more prodound than your normal posts which consists of poor trolling attempts and even worse logic.

[OCinBuffalo]

It would be prodound. Very, very, very prodound. Much more prodound than your normal posts which consists of poor trolling attempts and even worse logic.

:lol:

 

Thanks for proving my point.

 

Gotta love it when they walk into it....and so easily done.

 

Now, moron, go back and re-read both posts. Take out the liberal part of the second: and realize....they are identical policies in every way.

[B-Large]

It sure as stojan wouldn't be to put a halt to totally unrelated important national defense tests and cower in the corner.

 

Your definition of acting cautiously sure is strange. I would call it acting pussily.

 

being calulating and strategic is all of the sudden kitty? Didn't we just spend a decade cleaning up the deserts of terrorists?

[OCinBuffalo]

Is seems to me they are trying to determine if The Boy plays the same MO as his father, bat pans, make a hissy, only to in the end be more rhetoric and posturing that anything. They know who Dad was, not quite so sure who the kid is... does it make sense to antagonize a a threat, when all along it was going to be a threat anyway? NK has a history of this kind of ****.

 

Now Iran on the other hand, an emerging nuclear state is much more concerning my my opinion. Were not sure how they behave, but you have to give creedence to the president saying they want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

 

I don't think its weakness or kitty... heck, were dropping ordinance on targets with Drones constantly...the Presdient has a kill list... I don't think anyoe questions the American miltary might... what they may question is the Americans Publics willingness to spend another 5-10 years fighting wars on two fronts again as we march lock-step into national default.

First: Bat pans? WTF. Oh...I always think health care first when I read your posts, so I was thinking "bed pans". Silly.

 

Second: Who is antagonizing? We were just minding our business. Now we are RESPONDING to antagonization and threats. Theres both a distinction, and a difference.

 

Third: Nobody does queston American military strength. What the entire world is questioning right now: American Presidental Strength. The world watches their news channels, and ours, as well(FOX much more than CNN or MSNBC btw). The see this buffoon running around predicting sequester disaster, and then having to walk it back. They see the lack of leadership. They see that he can't even get universal background checks, which EVERBODY, including me, supports (90%) passed...because nobody wants to be seen as politically on board with this guy.

 

You think its a coincidence that at the same time President Obama looks his weakest...they are rolling out trouble?

Edited April 8, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[DC Tom]

It sure as stojan wouldn't be to put a halt to totally unrelated important national defense tests and cower in the corner.

 

Your definition of acting cautiously sure is strange. I would call it acting pussily.

 

"Important national defense tests." Hah. The Minuteman III needs testing like you need a sense of surrealistic humor.

 

Now, if they postponed a test of an ABM system...THAT would be stupid (not that they'd run an honest-to-God test by launching an actual missile to intercept.)

[OCinBuffalo]

"No reply. There's no reply at all. No reply at all, there's no reply at all"

 

 

How's that for a "poor trolling attempt"?

 

Successful troll is successful! And I certainly am, especially since I don't wear silly scarves.

[4merper4mer]

being calulating and strategic is all of the sudden kitty? Didn't we just spend a decade cleaning up the deserts of terrorists?

 

Maybe they should cancel lunch too. That doesn't have anything to do with North Korea either. Would that be calculating and strategic too?

 

Los Gatos can always come up with "good" reasons for being Los Gatos.