General US Politics

[Sias]

1 hour ago, Lushen said:

What are you getting at with Trump's emails?  With Clinton, it was illegal to do what she did.  There is no Trump equivalent as far as emails go.

I'm pretty sure it wasn't actually illegal because you know, no charges filed against her and all that. Careless though? I'll give you that.
My problem is that when Clinton used her private email account, the entire right flipped out due to them fearing leaks of confidential information. A lot of Trump's best buddies do pretty much exactly the same now, but noone seems to care. It's called hypocrisy.

Quote

Comparing homosexuality to murder is waaay far fetched.  We aren't in the dark ages anymore.   Of course people hate homosexuals still, but those people are very rare and I would think they know they're in the wrong, they just don't care.  I know of some people in religions and other places that consider it a sin, but none of them hate homosexuals.  There's a big difference between cult and religion.

Comparing birth control to murder is waaay far fetched. We aren't in the dark ages anymore.

I'll leave the stuff regarding homosexuality in the trusty hands of @Shoblongoo

[Res]

I mean, it's hard to believe you don't believe birth control is an abortifacient when you keep harping on about murder and ignoring the many health conditions it can help treat. And this isn't even touching upon the hypocritical behaviors of the anti-contraception people (plus, of course, they are always simultaneously anti-maternity leave, anti-single mothers and anti-welfare). But it'll be interesting to see what precedent this sets with regards to other religions.

 

 

[Shoblongoo]

11 minutes ago, Sias said:

I'm pretty sure it wasn't actually illegal because you know, no charges filed against her and all that. Careless though? I'll give you that.
My problem is that when Clinton used her private email account, the entire right flipped out due to them fearing leaks of confidential information. A lot of Trump's best buddies do pretty much exactly the same now, but noone seems to care. It's called hypocrisy.

Comparing birth control to murder is waaay far fetched. We aren't in the dark ages anymore.

I'll leave the stuff regarding homosexuality in the trusty hands of @Shoblongoo

If he's doing what I think he's doing and googling "Pastor Scott Lively," there's no way he comes back and defends that position. It's indefensible. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/scott-lively

Edited October 7, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Lushen]

24 minutes ago, Sias said:

I'm pretty sure it wasn't actually illegal because you know, no charges filed against her and all that. Careless though? I'll give you that.
My problem is that when Clinton used her private email account, the entire right flipped out due to them fearing leaks of confidential information. A lot of Trump's best buddies do pretty much exactly the same now, but noone seems to care. It's called hypocrisy.

1

It was entirely illegal, fyi.  The FBI did not recommend prosecution because they thought it was carelessness and something that people generally don't get prosecuted for.  That doesn't suddenly make it legal, it just means that it was not likely to hold up as a serious charge in a courtroom.   The action of sending classified documents through an unlicensed server is highly illegal.

42 minutes ago, Hylian Air Force said:

Muslims stone those people to death on a regular basis, and they don't see a problem with it. Tell me how that isn't hate, because if that isn't hate, nothing is.

Not in America.

I'm sorry if my outlook on America is rather positive.  Democrats these days would have you believe half the country is racist, sexist, homophobic, complicit with mass shootings, corrupt, and warmongerers (N Korea).  I apologize if I live in the one place in America where it seems more like 1-5% of the nation, but maybe they exaggerate.  Maybe people who follow the news too closely fail to recognize that there is 400+ million people so just because you see a racist on TV once a day, that doesn't mean it is widespread in any way. 

[Lord Raven]

12 hours ago, Lushen said:

Maybe we kept hearing about her emails 24/7 because she broke the law last time she was in charge of any gov't.  Not even CNN could avoid that.  Still, if you're going to blame an outlet that sided with you all the time (w/ the exception of Fox), you're a nutcase.  She literally blamed everyone and refuses to admit that she was just a terrible candidate.

They sided with her over Trump due to the fact that Trump is a fucking horrible and disgusting piece of shit excuse for a human being. The key words are in italics.

Regardless, nobody will admit they're a terrible candidate because then the question is why did you run? Then you also admit the rest of the Democratic party is just as bad as you -- fucking the only people who ran against her were really shitty candidates including Bernie Sanders. Of course, you dodged the question about if you read the book or even snippets of the book.

And by the way; she blamed everyone including herself. As far as her candidacy goes, she was actually a good candidate with a bad campaign. Depends on how you define "good candidate" anyway.

Quote

And yes, Clinton was not very left.  Neither will a lot of other democratic presidents before Obama, which is why I actually didn't have a problem with Bill Clinton. I don't know how you could say Obama was more right, that's just wrong.  His biggest legacy is obamacare which is very liberal (equality).  And hell, even CNN knows Obamacare is failing.

Obamacare is not about equality. Are you joking right now? Do you even know what Obamacare even does or are you saying it's some socialist universal healthcare/government run healthcare system? Because it's not. It's not "liberal" to include market regulations like Obamacare effectively is (with an individual mandate thrown in there to make it so premiums go down or rise slower). Otherwise, you'd be calling anything that breaks apart a monopoly "liberal" rather than centrist. Obama was left-of-center, but really more or less a centrist much like Hillary Clinton, and Clinton's foreign policy placed her further right than Obama. Hillary Clinton is about the same as Bill Clinton if he were brought forward 24 years.

Quote

I don't know why people think I watch fox news, I don't even have cable.  I guess it's impossible to have conservative beliefs without watching fox news which, btw, is less bias than CNN is nowadays.   Besides, Fox news may love Republicans but they still bash Trump 90% of the time.

Fox News slobber all over Trump's dick like a porn star. I don't know why you make claims like that if you don't have cable; Fox News articles I've read may as well put their chin up and ask for daddy to give it to them. That's Fox News with the Republican Party and Trump. To say or think otherwise is blatantly lying or being ignorant. Either way, the reason why you're accused of watching Fox News is because you're pretty much ignorant and you don't have a good grasp on these things called facts or this thing called analysis. Besides, Fox News is meant to be a network for rich conservatives such as yourself, and they're meant to convince you that most people who are either single, poor, or black are out there to take your stuff and live in permanent entitlement, as shown by your 3 step plan to not be poor which is a fucking joke.

Either way, CNN is still way less biased than Fox News. You are aware Fox News is legally mandated to only call 30 minutes of airtime "news" right? Because that allows them to lie and do whatever the fuck they want for 23.5 hours. (actually, take this with a grain of salt, it's something I remember hearing but I'm too lazy to find the source because I just got home from work, since I'm still poor and I work 60 hours a week and I'm childless. Apparently life is so simple I shouldn't be in poverty right now, maybe I'm missing some part of your three step plan?)

Anyway,

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/cnn/

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/

:thinking emoji:

10 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Yeah the State of Massachusetts immediately filed suit over that in federal court. I'm going over the pleadings now.

Remember when Obama couldn't get immigration reform through Congress, so he issued executive orders to cease enforcing various provisions of the INS? And Republicans started crying "That's unconstitutional! He can't do that! Why doesn't this president respect the rule of law!?"

That's basically what Trump is doing right now with the ACA.

Massive hypocrisy.

Is it hypocritical though? The Democrats stonewall bills because they're bad, the Republicans stonewall bills because the president is black. Not all obstruction is created equal!!!!

3 hours ago, Lushen said:

I'm sorry if my outlook on America is rather positive.  Democrats these days would have you believe half the country is racist, sexist, homophobic, complicit with mass shootings, corrupt, and warmongerers (N Korea).  I apologize if I live in the one place in America where it seems more like 1-5% of the nation, but maybe they exaggerate.  Maybe people who follow the news too closely fail to recognize that there is 400+ million people so just because you see a racist on TV once a day, that doesn't mean it is widespread in any way. 

or maybe you can read the stats

50% of the voters went for an overtly racist and sexist person who blames mass shootings on democrats

and they didnt care for his homophobic VP

they made their views very clear on this matter, but let's not pretend that gay marriage wasn't legal until a supreme court ruling in 2013 (and various random states)

so yes, democrats would have you believe that shit, cause those are the facts, and because segregation fucking exists everywhere. you're using your own personal experience in one place in america to view this, but i've personally seen the ugliest we have to offer as well as the greatest. thats why i keep pressuring you into talking about your actual personal life, because i don't have any idea why you think the way you do unless you're seriously sheltered somehow

and again, a majority of the republican party voters does not believe or has doubts about obama's US citizenship. the only reason you can honestly conclude that is racism. you can list any number of reasons that end up being racist, and this man released his birth certificate.

3 hours ago, Lushen said:

It was entirely illegal, fyi.  The FBI did not recommend prosecution because they thought it was carelessness and something that people generally don't get prosecuted for.  That doesn't suddenly make it legal, it just means that it was not likely to hold up as a serious charge in a courtroom.   The action of sending classified documents through an unlicensed server is highly illegal.

so why does the current POTUS do it after winning an election on the chants of "lock her up" due to this

that's where the hypocrisy comes in

Edited October 7, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Res]

I do believe the U.S. is less sexist, homophobic and racist than ever. However, that's not saying much - just that it was even more sexist, homophobic and racist in the past. There's always a period when it sounds like things are getting worse but in fact we're (the privileged people) just hearing more about it because people are finally being given a voice (or rather, people have finally found an outlet for their voice in the internet). 

Anyone who's not privileged can tell you that things have never been great for them. We can look at past advertisements, books, magazines and TV shows to see some of it for ourselves; I find a lot of pre-2000 shows to be pretty cringeworthy these days with the value of hindsight, for example. 

With regards to certain issues - mass shootings, police shootings, healthcare, warmongering and religious fundamentalism - the U.S. is a joke to much of the rest of the world, and that's speaking from the benefit of having actually lived in another country for 25 years. Of course no country is perfect and of course the U.S. has made more progress than other countries in many regards. The U.S. attracts more attention, though, for the size of its population, its nationalism and the power it wields worldwide. Regardless of what percentage of the population is responsible for each issue, they all affect the country as a whole.

[Shoblongoo]

6 hours ago, Res said:

With regards to certain issues - mass shootings, police shootings, healthcare, warmongering and religious fundamentalism - the U.S. is a joke to much of the rest of the world

...Like this was verbatim a conversation my wife had with a senior attorney the other day...  (Supposedly an educated, intelligent man)

ATTORNEY:  Ohhhhhh; you're from Taiwan! That must be scary!

WIFE:  ???

ATTORNEY:  Everything that's going on with China--never knowing when they're going to invade.

WIFE:  Not really. It's scary living in America.

ATTORNEY:  ???

WIFE:  Going to a mall or a concert or a movie and never knowing if you're going to get shot. Even the police here can kill you. 

ATTORNEY:  ....oh....thats...

WIFE:  My parents worry about me being here. Taiwan is much safer. 

ATTORNEY:  ...but it still must be nicer living here...its America...

WIFE:  ...

ATTORNEY:  ...

WIFE:  ...

ATTORNEY:  Do you speak Mandarin or Chinese?

WIFE:  
 

Edited October 7, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Moblin Major General]

26 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

*snip*

I think China is content with Taiwan not being a country for right now, as Taiwan did represent China on the Security Council until the 70s, and they want to make them feel how they felt. China also knows that if they invade Taiwan, it would be like North Korean aggression up to 11: China would be nuked to oblivion, which is different than nuking Pyongyang and being basically done with it, because we are talking about almost 1/7th of the entire population of the world being wiped off the face of the Earth, and taking the world's fastest growing economy with it.

[eclipse]

On 10/6/2017 at 11:46 AM, Res said:

Why? How does any company feel the need to insert its nose into a health matter that absolutely does not affect the company in any way?

And it's hardly a financial issue, since the cost of covering a pill isn't going to affect the premiums in any way.

Actually, birth control can affect a company.  Among other things, it can be used to make menses a lot more bearable (less cramps and bleeding, more predictable).  Thus, it would be a positive if companies supported this, so that their women don't have to take sick days to deal with PMS.

The downside is that it can also affect mood negatively (but so does unavoidable pain, so eh).

[Lushen]

Alright the recent comments by Donald Trump are just creepy.

First, "Do you know what this represents, maybe the calm before the storm"

Second, reporter asks "What storm", to which Trump replies "You'll find out"

Now this,

 

I don't think this is all talk.

[Time the Crestfallen]

54 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Alright the recent comments by Donald Trump are just creepy.

First, "Do you know what this represents, maybe the calm before the storm"

Second, reporter asks "What storm", to which Trump replies "You'll find out"

Now this,

 

I don't think this is all talk.

Which is fucking stupid, since declaring war on N.K. is probably one of the few things that can tank his reputation domestically and internationally even further than he already has. Invading N.K. gains nothing other than alienating his allies and dragging us into WW3.

Edited October 8, 2017 by Magus of Flowers

[Moblin Major General]

18 minutes ago, Magus of Flowers said:

Which is fucking stupid, since declaring war on N.K. is probably one of the few things that can tank his reputation domestically and internationally even further than he already has. Invading N.K. gains nothing other than alienating his allies and dragging us into WW3.

Congress is the one that votes on whether or not America goes to war. Enough of either the Senate or the House voting no kills the call for war, and will guarantee the victory in 2018 of any congressman or senator that votes no. Also, as America has not declared war (de jure) since 1941, the UN would have to analyse whether they have a valid cassus belli. If we don't, we might be threatened with sanction (ironic punishment all things considered). If we do, then our allies in South Korea and Japan will move swiftly to end the Korean War once and for all.

[Time the Crestfallen]

50 minutes ago, Hylian Air Force said:

<Snip>

It was less a comment on 'can he do it' and moreso 'him wanting to declare war' (or inferring he wants to at least) is stupid as fuck since he doesn't gain anything from it.

[Lushen]

I just watched an interview with President Trump and he said at one point he believes Iran is trading with N Korea.  Next week, the Iranian nuclear deal is up for renewal.  I think he's preparing a little more than a cancellation of the agreement.  

And I'd like to mention that a few weeks ago dems were saying "Oh, North Korea is no threat - their missiles can't even reach us!" as their excuse for avoiding N Korea hoping it goes away.  Well, now they're testing missiles that can, and its only been a few weeks.  Now it's, "Oh, he's not crazy enough to hit the US".  I mean, you guys do know there is literally North Korean propaganda in the streets depicting missiles hitting the US, right?  These people dream of being able to attack the US.  And the ambassador called it "inevitable".  I understand North Korea has always made these threats, but now that North Korea is capable of carrying them out - aren't you at least a little concerned?   Obama's "hope it goes away" policy is certainty not going to work and I think Trump is right when he says this should have been dealt with years ago.  We could have stopped North Korea in its tracks when they didn't have the means to fight back - now what?

[Time the Crestfallen]

21 minutes ago, Lushen said:

I mean, you guys do know there is literally North Korean propaganda in the streets depicting missiles hitting the US, right?  These people dream of being able to attack the US.

These people? You do realise that the average N.K. citizen isn't exactly pleased with the situation, but doesn't do anything because they and three generations of their family get sent to the labour camps if they try to do anything about it, right?

21 minutes ago, Lushen said:

I understand North Korea has always made these threats, but now that North Korea is capable of carrying them out - aren't you at least a little concerned?

Little bit, but not moreso than my general sense of existential nihilism. China has said they will attack the US if they make the first strike. They've also said if N.K. attacks first, they won't lift a finger to help. What we have hear is Trump and Kim trying to bait the other into attacking first, because whoever attacks first is going to be majorly disadvantaged by it (N.K. won't have any allies willing to fight with them, and the US is going to have to fight China + other allies). Thing is though, with things not looking particularly good for Trump domestically, I'm worried about what he's going to do once he's pushed into a corner.

Also, yes, this should've been dealt with years ago. It goes back way before Obama though, and China would've made 'dealing with it' a lot more complicated than you're making it out to be.

Edited October 8, 2017 by Magus of Flowers

[Lord Raven]

you also realize that nobody wants to touch NK because it would create one of the worst humanitarian crises of all time that the world is not ready for

the problems that NK "liberation" would create in SK would pretty much doom that whole peninsula for at least 2-3 generations

you also realize that given the absolutely fucking catastrophic failure of the Iraq war, obama was smart enough to not repeat the same mistake in NK...

[Lushen]

11 minutes ago, Magus of Flowers said:

These people? You do realise that the average N.K. citizen isn't exactly pleased with the situation, but doesn't do anything because they and three generations of their family get sent to the labour camps if they try to do anything about it, right?

The average NK citizen is hardly even a person.  They are slaves to their government without so much as the right to have an opinion.  

The issue is, NK has been gearing up to destroy the US for last several years.  This isn't going away.  Every article I've seen out of someone who visited North Korea is one of complete horror. I've never read someone who visited North Korea and go "Oh, you know what?  I think everything fine, no cause for concern".

I mean seriously, read some of this crap https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/opinion/sunday/nuclear-north-korea.html

@Lord RavenWhat would a humanitarian crisis look like if we continued to wait until North Korea does something?  North Korea already hates the US, ignoring them won't change that.  Iraq was a mistake because it involved the US with something we didn't need to be involved in.  The same does not apply for North Korea.

Edited October 8, 2017 by Lushen

[Time the Crestfallen]

11 minutes ago, Lushen said:

The average NK citizen is hardly even a person.  They are slaves to their government without so much as the right to have an opinion.

Is this supposed to be a statement on the level of oppression, or a moral judgement on how they all want to destroy the US?

11 minutes ago, Lushen said:

The issue is, NK has been gearing up to destroy the US for last several years.  This isn't going away.  Every article I've seen out of someone who visited North Korea is one of complete horror. I've never read someone who visited North Korea and go "Oh, you know what?  I think everything fine, no cause for concern".

I mean seriously, read some of this crap https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/opinion/sunday/nuclear-north-korea.html

I'd love to know what part of my post made you think that I think the situation with N.K. is completely fine. I never said that, just that you can't run in guns blazing while the Team America: World Police theme blares in the background without creating an even bigger mess of things. Especially considering that the threat N.K. posses to the US. is nothing, and I mean nothing, compared to what would happen to S.K. and Japan.

11 minutes ago, Lushen said:

 

@Lord RavenWhat would a humanitarian crisis look like if we continued to wait until North Korea does something?  North Korea already hates the US, ignoring them won't change that.  Iraq was a mistake because it involved the US with something we didn't need to be involved in.  The same does not apply for North Korea.

Did you miss the part where I said China's involvement in a hypothetical conflict is dependent on who attacks first? Do you think China getting involved and siding with N.K. would make things significantly worse?

Edited October 8, 2017 by Magus of Flowers

[Lushen]

1 minute ago, Magus of Flowers said:

Is this supposed to be a statement on the level of oppression, or a moral judgement on how they all want to destroy the US?

I'd love to know what part of my post made you think that I think the situation with N.K. is completely fine. I never said that, just that you can't run in guns blazing while the Team America: World Police theme blares in the background without creating an even bigger mess of things. Especially considering that the thread N.K. posses to the US. is nothing, and I mean nothing, compared to what would happen to S.K. and Japan.

Did you miss the part where I said China's involvement in a hypothetical conflict is dependent on who attacks first? Do you think China getting involved and siding with N.K. would make things significantly worse?

It was a statement that you are not doing these people any good by letting them be.  And when you teach 12 year olds that north korea will one day go to America and blow it up, that doesn't suggest North Korean hostility will de-escalate ever.

Obviously, no one wants war.  The absolute best way to defeat N Korea is doing exactly what Trump is doing now - attacking their economy.  However, this isn't like the cold war where the US was such a big market power they could practically do it on their own.  If other countries don't side with the US and cut of trade, then what?  

Look, even if I give dems the benefit of the doubt, how long can they prevent this from happening?  4 years?  10 years?  20 years?  At this point, North Korea will have enough nukes to blow up all major US cities (given how fast they've developed).  Something needs to be done NOW, and if attacking their economy doesn't work, what the hell are we supposed to do?

[Time the Crestfallen]

2 minutes ago, Lushen said:

It was a statement that you are not doing these people any good by letting them be.  And when you teach 12 year olds that north korea will one day go to America and blow it up, that doesn't suggest North Korean hostility will de-escalate ever.

I can tell you right now that the citizenry has no impact on whether or not things de-escalate.

3 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Obviously, no one wants war.  The absolute best way to defeat N Korea is doing exactly what Trump is doing now - attacking their economy.  However, this isn't like the cold war where the US was such a big market power they could practically do it on their own.  If other countries don't side with the US and cut of trade, then what?

Weren't you the one coming in here and saying Trump's tweets were ominous? Attacking the economically is the way to go, but you don't do that by making threats and starting pissing matches on twitter, because you either back down and discredit yourself or follow through and start WW3.

5 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Look, even if I give dems the benefit of the doubt, how long can they prevent this from happening?  4 years?  10 years?  20 years?  At this point, North Korea will have enough nukes to blow up all major US cities (given how fast they've developed).  Something needs to be done NOW, and if attacking their economy doesn't work, what the hell are we supposed to do?

What do the Dems have to do with this? They're getting pissed about Trump going full keyboard-warrior over this and being too aggressive, which isn't going to work because the US. attacking first would be the second-best scenario for them outside of other countries just going 'have some more food and STFU'.

[Lushen]

Just two questions

1.  Given current North Korean weapon technology advancements, how many years would you like to put the North Korean issue off either by paying them off or avoiding confrontation?

2.  If attacking the economy doesn't work, which Trump has done more aggressively than any other president, what can we do right now to put an end to it immediately?

[Sias]

On 7.10.2017 at 3:35 AM, Lushen said:

It was entirely illegal, fyi.  The FBI did not recommend prosecution because they thought it was carelessness and something that people generally don't get prosecuted for.  That doesn't suddenly make it legal, it just means that it was not likely to hold up as a serious charge in a courtroom.   The action of sending classified documents through an unlicensed server is highly illegal.

If you're so horribly upset about Clinton's email issues, wouldn't this be even more of a reason to get angry at the Trump administration now because they're doing exactly the same?

Quote

Not in America.

I'm sorry if my outlook on America is rather positive.  Democrats these days would have you believe half the country is racist, sexist, homophobic, complicit with mass shootings, corrupt, and warmongerers (N Korea).  I apologize if I live in the one place in America where it seems more like 1-5% of the nation, but maybe they exaggerate.  Maybe people who follow the news too closely fail to recognize that there is 400+ million people so just because you see a racist on TV once a day, that doesn't mean it is widespread in any way. 

Maybe you tend to not notice problems like these as you might be blinded by your privilege?

1 minute ago, Lushen said:

Just two questions

1.  Given current North Korean weapon technology advancements, how many years would you like to put the North Korean issue off either by paying them off or avoiding confrontation?

2.  If attacking the economy doesn't work, which Trump has done more aggressively than any other president, what can we do right now to put an end to it immediately?

From your own article:

Quote

A basic problem is that hard-liners seem ascendant in both Washington and Pyongyang.  [...] Trump’s policy toward North Korea is founded on false assumptions that the Supreme Leader, Kim Jong-un, will give up his nuclear weapons, that China can save the day and that military options are real. [...] The North Koreans insist that the U.S. make the first move and drop its sanctions and “hostile attitude” — which won’t happen. And the U.S. is equally unrealistic in insisting that North Korea give up its entire nuclear program. [...]

Both sides are on a hair trigger. That’s why in war games, conflicts quickly escalate — and why the American military estimated back in 1994 that another Korean war would cause one million casualties and $1 trillion in damage. Today, with the possibility of an exchange of nuclear weapons, the toll could be far greater: One recent study suggested that if North Korea detonated nuclear weapons over Tokyo and Seoul, deaths in those two cities alone could exceed two million. [...]

So how do we get out of this mess?
First, Trump should stop personalizing and escalating the conflict. Second, we need talks without conditions, if only talks about talks: I’d suggest a secret visit to Pyongyang by a senior administration official, as well as discussions with North Korea’s ambassador to the United Nations. Third, human rights have to be part of the agenda, backed by the threat of suspending North Korea’s credentials at the United Nations. Fourth, we should support organizations that smuggle information on USB drives into North Korea; this would be cheap and might contribute to change in the long term. Fifth, increase cyberwarfare, which the U.S. has already used effectively against North Korea. Sixth, let’s enforce tighter sanctions, but only if harnessed to a plausible outcome.
Ultimately, the best hope that is realistic may be a variant of what’s called a “freeze for a freeze,” with North Korea halting its nuclear and missile tests in exchange for a reduction in sanctions and in U.S.-South Korean military exercises — as an interim step, preserving the long-term goal of denuclearization. Unfortunately, both sides resist this approach; I was disappointed in the lack of North Korean interest.
So if we can’t work out a freeze for a freeze, realistically the next best option is to settle into long-term mutual deterrence. But that would be risky, not least because we have an American president and a North Korean leader who both seem impetuous, overconfident and temperamentally inclined to escalate any dispute — and the American mainland increasingly will be in the cross hairs of North Korean nuclear warheads.
I leave North Korea with the same sense of foreboding that I felt after leaving Saddam’s Iraq in 2002. War is preventable, but I’m not sure it will be prevented.

 

Edited October 8, 2017 by Sias

[Lushen]

1 minute ago, Sias said:

Maybe you tend to not notice problems like these as you might be blinded by your privilege?

^Exactly why people are mad at the democratic party.  

2 minutes ago, Sias said:

From your own article:

The article is great for evidence of what the situation in N Korea is like.  The opinion of the author is rather stupid.  His answer to question one is infinity and his answer to question 2 is ignore it.  Basically precisely why North Korea now has weapons that can reach the United States.

[Time the Crestfallen]

5 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Just two questions

1.  Given current North Korean weapon technology advancements, how many years would you like to put the North Korean issue off either by paying them off or avoiding confrontation?

Realistically speaking,  you can put it off forever, because Kim knows that actually going through and attacking is the end for him because no-one will help him fight the war and that his country is completely incapable of standing on it's own two legs. Without aid coming in from other countries, his whole country, including the military goes hungry. And when the hungry members of the military outnumber the ones that aren't, that's when you're gonna start seeing coup attempts.

5 minutes ago, Lushen said:

2.  If attacking the economy doesn't work, which Trump has done more aggressively than any other president, what can we do right now to put an end to it immediately?

I never said that didn't work, I said that was the best way to do it. I just said that Trump needs to stop being a keyboard-warrior and stop inferring that he's gonna wipe them off the face of the Earth at any minute, because a) it's not working and b) it's exactly what Kim wants him to do.

Edited October 8, 2017 by Magus of Flowers

[Lushen]

1 minute ago, Magus of Flowers said:

Realistically speaking, forever, because Kim knows that actually going through and attacking is the end for him because no-one will help him fight the war and that his country is completely incapable of standing on it's own two legs. Without aid coming in from other countries, his whole country, including the military goes hungry. And when the hungry members of the military outnumber the ones that aren't, that's when you're gonna start seeing coup attempts.

America was not a major player before WW2.  Few years later, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  As I said above, this is exactly what the US has been doing in the last few presidencies.  The result?  North Korea can now hit the United States and continues to advance it's nuclear program.  Great job America.