Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 10, 2017 Posted August 10, 2017 I like the Trump madman approach. Keeps NK on their toes. I think our next step should be to blow up Guam ourselves. Then be like, who’s crazy now, Kim? So I guess you enjoy the fireworks display from NK. Wonder how Japan likes it?
RaoulDuke79 Posted August 10, 2017 Posted August 10, 2017 I like the Trump madman approach. Keeps NK on their toes. I think our next step should be to blow up Guam ourselves. Then be like, whos crazy now, Kim? Hahaha....like the dude in The Usual Suspects who shot his own family so the bad guys couldn't....i gotta start playing Fallout 4 again in between working on my bolt gun.
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 10, 2017 Posted August 10, 2017 How do you think China will handle the N Korea problem ? It's tough to say, but they can't ignore the growing pressures being placed on them by the rogue state. As much as China doesn't want a pro-western democracy on their border, which was the purpose of propping up the DPRK in the first place, it can't abide a situation where it has an openly hostile nuclear state run by a lunatic wielding absolute power who is antagonizing other world powers on it's border either. China will deal with the situation they've created, or if they abrogate that responsibility, the United States, S. Korea, and Japan will, and the outcome will not be pro-China. So China can choose a pro-China solution, or a pro-West solution. Either way, they'll be forced to choose.
DC Tom Posted August 10, 2017 Posted August 10, 2017 Susan Rice tells Trump to learn to "tolerate" a nuclear North Korea http://washex.am/2vIpB8K...... Susan has forgotten what her boss said less than a year ago. President Obama, Sept 2016: "To be clear, the United States does not, and never will, accept North Korea as a nuclear state" http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-on-north-koreas-nuclear-test-2016-9 … Susan Rice is a !@#$ing dingbat and a half. I like the Trump madman approach. Keeps NK on their toes. I think our next step should be to blow up Guam ourselves. Then be like, who’s crazy now, Kim? No one's threatening to blow up Guam. Even Kim Jong Un hasn't threatened to blow up Guam. He's threatened to launch missiles near Guam. He's threatening to blow up fish. This the most drool-infused international stand-off in world history. It's tough to say, but they can't ignore the growing pressures being placed on them by the rogue state. As much as China doesn't want a pro-western democracy on their border, which was the purpose of propping up the DPRK in the first place, it can't abide a situation where it has an openly hostile nuclear state run by a lunatic wielding absolute power who is antagonizing other world powers on it's border either. China will deal with the situation they've created, or if they abrogate that responsibility, the United States, S. Korea, and Japan will, and the outcome will not be pro-China. So China can choose a pro-China solution, or a pro-West solution. Either way, they'll be forced to choose. Plus, it does them no good to have a crazy neighbor/client state running around threatening all the Pacific Rim countries they have increasingly strong economic ties with. I.e. it is of absolutely no benefit to China to have North Korea posing such a threat to Japan that Japan rearms itself (which is already being discussed in the Diet.)
ALF Posted August 10, 2017 Posted August 10, 2017 It's tough to say, but they can't ignore the growing pressures being placed on them by the rogue state. As much as China doesn't want a pro-western democracy on their border, which was the purpose of propping up the DPRK in the first place, it can't abide a situation where it has an openly hostile nuclear state run by a lunatic wielding absolute power who is antagonizing other world powers on it's border either. China will deal with the situation they've created, or if they abrogate that responsibility, the United States, S. Korea, and Japan will, and the outcome will not be pro-China. So China can choose a pro-China solution, or a pro-West solution. Either way, they'll be forced to choose. Agree , good answer
reddogblitz Posted August 10, 2017 Posted August 10, 2017 (edited) Susan Rice is a !@#$ing dingbat and a half. No one's threatening to blow up Guam. Even Kim Jong Un hasn't threatened to blow up Guam. He's threatened to launch missiles near Guam. He's threatening to blow up fish. This the most drool-infused international stand-off in world history since Gulf War II. Fixed. And just as much BS. Edited August 10, 2017 by reddogblitz
DC Tom Posted August 11, 2017 Posted August 11, 2017 Fixed. And just as much BS. I did consider that. But I ultimately decided that this standoff is much, much stupider. There were at least sound, rational arguments to be had for invading Iraq (the Bush administration didn't make them, and I didn't agree with them. But they did exist.) This is just a pissing contest between two overgrown children so insecure that they probably would both cheat at Chutes and Ladders rather than lose to a six year old, and see nothing wrong with it.
Tiberius Posted August 11, 2017 Posted August 11, 2017 I did consider that. But I ultimately decided that this standoff is much, much stupider. There were at least sound, rational arguments to be had for invading Iraq (the Bush administration didn't make them, and I didn't agree with them. But they did exist.) This is just a pissing contest between two overgrown children so insecure that they probably would both cheat at Chutes and Ladders rather than lose to a six year old, and see nothing wrong with it. It's time for Congress to consider removing Trump 25th Amendment Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President. Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.[3]
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 11, 2017 Posted August 11, 2017 I did consider that. But I ultimately decided that this standoff is much, much stupider. There were at least sound, rational arguments to be had for invading Iraq (the Bush administration didn't make them, and I DIDN'T AGREE WITH THEM. But they did exist.) Of course they existed and you agreed with them. You can say anything you want now. Nice revisionism. Fool the people who weren't here. Baloney... Liar. If only the old board still existed and wasn't nuked (hey kind of on topic). You were banging the drums of war with the rest of them in late 2002 as the country ramped up to war in 2003. I first joined here in 12/2002. I was the one calling Saddam Hussein a "paper tiger"... Of course the usual conservative suspects wanted to run me out on a rail. They still haven't... I said I would always stick around to remind you idiots of your stupidity and foolishness.
DC Tom Posted August 11, 2017 Posted August 11, 2017 Of course they existed and you agreed with them. You can say anything you want now. Nice revisionism. Fool the people who weren't here. Baloney... Liar. If only the old board still existed and wasn't nuked (hey kind of on topic). You were banging the drums of war with the rest of them in late 2002 as the country ramped up to war in 2003. I first joined here in 12/2002. I was the one calling Saddam Hussein a "paper tiger"... Of course the usual conservative suspects wanted to run me out on a rail. They still haven't... I said I would always stick around to remind you idiots of your stupidity and foolishness. No I was not. I was very consistent in that regard: in the absence of international agreement or an immediate and direct threat the use of force was immoral, and that you shouldn't dive in to wars that you can realistically avoid. You're just confused because I don't buy the "Bush lied" bull **** people like you shovel, and was actually for the occupation (on the moral grounds of - at the risk of oversimplifying - "You break it, you fix it.")
/dev/null Posted August 11, 2017 Posted August 11, 2017 It's time for Congress to consider removing Trump 25th Amendment If we had applied the 25th Amendment to PPP you would have been gone long ago
Tiberius Posted August 11, 2017 Posted August 11, 2017 If we had applied the 25th Amendment to PPP you would have been gone long ago We did a poll, remember?
outsidethebox Posted August 11, 2017 Posted August 11, 2017 It's time for Congress to consider removing Trump 25th Amendment Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President. Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.[3] Give it up already.
4merper4mer Posted August 11, 2017 Posted August 11, 2017 (edited) It's tough to say, but they can't ignore the growing pressures being placed on them by the rogue state. As much as China doesn't want a pro-western democracy on their border, which was the purpose of propping up the DPRK in the first place, it can't abide a situation where it has an openly hostile nuclear state run by a lunatic wielding absolute power who is antagonizing other world powers on it's border either. China will deal with the situation they've created, or if they abrogate that responsibility, the United States, S. Korea, and Japan will, and the outcome will not be pro-China. So China can choose a pro-China solution, or a pro-West solution. Either way, they'll be forced to choose. In your humble opinion would China, with a wink from Seoul, Tokyo and DC, annexing NK be a viable solution? Edited August 11, 2017 by 4merper4mer
Doc Brown Posted August 11, 2017 Posted August 11, 2017 (edited) No I was not. I was very consistent in that regard: in the absence of international agreement or an immediate and direct threat the use of force was immoral, and that you shouldn't dive in to wars that you can realistically avoid. You're just confused because I don't buy the "Bush lied" bull **** people like you shovel, and was actually for the occupation (on the moral grounds of - at the risk of oversimplifying - "You break it, you fix it.") I agree, but feel the same about the "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" statement by Obama. Most on here don't. There's a difference between outright lies (see Clapper on surveillance) and stating something as a fact you believe will come true based off the available evidence you have. Edited August 11, 2017 by Doc Brown
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 11, 2017 Posted August 11, 2017 !@#$ me. Can people please stop quoting that idiot? No one needs another discussion about the 25th Amendment.
reddogblitz Posted August 11, 2017 Posted August 11, 2017 It's time for Congress to consider removing Trump 25th Amendment Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President. Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.[3] Pence would be worse.
ALF Posted August 11, 2017 Posted August 11, 2017 (edited) China pledges neutrality - unless US strikes North Korea first China’s government says it would remain neutral if North Korea attacks the United States, but warned it would defend its Asian neighbor if the U.S. strikes first and tries to overthrow Kim Jong Un’s regime, Chinese state media said Friday. “If the U.S. and South Korea carry out strikes and try to overthrow the North Korean regime, and change the political pattern of the Korean Peninsula, China will prevent them from doing so,” reported the Global Times, a daily Chinese newspaper controlled by the Communist Party. http://www.foxnews.c...orea-first.html That does not help at all. It just empowers N Korea even more to continue short of attacking another country. Why would N Korea need nukes or missiles if China guarantees no regime change and defend against a first strike. They could thrive without sanctions. Edited August 11, 2017 by ALF
Nanker Posted August 11, 2017 Posted August 11, 2017 This the most drool-infused international stand-off in world history. Fixed.And just as much BS. I did consider that. But I ultimately decided that this standoff is much, much stupider. There were at least sound, rational arguments to be had for invading Iraq (the Bush administration didn't make them, and I didn't agree with them. But they did exist.) This is just a pissing contest between two overgrown children so insecure that they probably would both cheat at Chutes and Ladders rather than lose to a six year old, and see nothing wrong with it. Yeah, I'd go with "since Gulf War II". This is perhaps the winner of "in the history of the world."
Recommended Posts