ehh… It’s thought that NK has a LOT of unexploited mineral resources. Not worth the trade off though.
As much as I would love to see Kim Jong Un spend a few years in his own ‘re-education’ camps. And as much as I would love to help the NK people. I think the best solution is to see Kim die on the vine. It is a long living tree though. A NK war would kill 10’s of millions.
Trump: Talk loud and throw the stick in the garbage because maybe Obama touched it.
This would seem to be a “pro” towards occupation. “We will ensure your DPRK relatives have a better life”
NK has like 2% of the population of China, would it really be that big of a problem? Plus they wouldn’t be fleeing the country, they would just stay there with what is probably a better way of life.
Not being argumentative, just trying to understand.
Yep.
Jesus. :smack: I was disappointed to learn the real presidential dollar system would not produce an Obama coin; but that disappointment is tempered by the fact that the same goes for Trump. I ordered hundreds of LBJ and JFK dollars from the US Mint, and they are the only dollars I use (any time I make a purchase, I add enough of them and smaller coins to make sure my change is a multiple of five dollars).
Mightn’t it consider 47,000 square miles of trinitite “stability”? 
China used more concrete between 2011 and 2013 than the U.S. used in the entire 20th century. I think they can handle it.
It’s not a lack of concern for Koreans, it’s just a greater concern for me and mine. If I’m driving past a children’s hospital with my kids in tow, and snipers from within it start targeting my car, if I happen to have a grenade launcher with me, I’m firing away, no matter how many cute little sick moppets it might blow up in the process. Sorry!
What the actual fuck are you talking about? I’m a Democrat. Get it straight.
To quote Danny Elfman, “the smart bombs are so clever they only kill bad people now.”
Trump probably believes this.
The adverb in the previous sentence is unnecessary.
LOL, ok. Thanks for sharing. Let me know when your kids are in such a danger from North Korea that you think tens of thousands of dead Korean civilians in a war is worth it.
I’m not keen to wait until they have miniaturized warheads and dependable ICBMs. At that point, it’s too late.
This country elected a guy who engages in massive criminal fraud, is probably indebted personally to Vladimir Putin, and sexually assaulted multiple women. Maybe he hasn’t committed murder (that we know of), but Donald Trump is no less of a raving lunatic than Kim Jung Un. What makes us “better” isn’t our president; it’s our democratic institutions - which our current president is setting out to destroy. Things like democracy, the rule of law, human rights. And this president could quite easily use a war on North Korea as a pretext to cripple those institutions. I think you need to see things through a more objective lens.
The Neville Chamberlain analogy doesn’t work here. North Korea isn’t threatening to invade another country to “protect” ethnic North Korean speaking populations in China, Japan, or even South Korea for that matter. Of course, again, bear in mind that this EXACTLY Vladimir Putin’s tactic - and may I remind you once more that our president is currently what the CIA may term an “asset” of Putin - that’s beyond obvious now. North Korea’s not threatening invasion, they’re not threatening to “rescue” North Koreans or even South Koreans. They’re just threatening to blow the shit out of any country that dares to test the regime. Which brings us to why we have the Russia problem to begin with: something happened in 2003, a thing called regime change. If you’re Kim Jung Un - or Vladimir Putin for that matter - and you’ve been called out as an unacceptable regime and you watch America’s invasion and Saddam Hussein drop from a rope an hour before the crystal ball drops from Times Square on New Year’s eve…how is it NOT rational to think that the United States is out to get you? Piece of scum or angel, what head of state wouldn’t take steps to defend their regime. You know, decades ago, we had a foreign policy that didn’t think in simplistic, binary terms of “good and evil”. We accepted that the world was a dangerous neighborhood and we sometimes have to do business with people we don’t like.
This is probably how some within the Pentagon see this as well, and that’s what makes the situation dangerous. The North Koreans probably won’t even fire another missile until they’re done with their growing season - they’re reduced to using human shit as fertilizer. This is not a country that’s going to start lobbing nuclear missiles at its neighbors. But get close enough to that hive and they might assume you’re a predator that’s their to destroy it. The American era of regime change is probably more than anything to blame for some of its most difficult diplomatic situations.
Russia has that. Do you think they are a huge threat to your children?
If I were to come straight out and state that I don’t care if your wife dies, no doubt I would get a warning from a mod. But you probably don’t understand that you just said to me you don’t care if my wife dies.
But let’s take your nonsense, er, example. There are other, and legal and moral, options than committing a war crime or mass murder.
There is no longer even the shadow of a doubt.
“I hope the Russians love their children too.”
As bad as Putin is (he blew up apartment blocks of his own citizens as a false flag operation to gin up his own popularity, not to mention helping us elect the Giant Cheeto of Doom and Facepalm), he–like his predecessor Stalin–is more rational than that. But if he weren’t, it would be too late to do anything about it and thus an irrelevant question.
I do wonder: assuming there really are the massive number of alien civilizations that Carl Sagan and others calculated there must be (although there’s the Fermi paradox, but let’s set that aside for the sake of argument), on how many worlds did multiple nuclear powers develop? I have a feeling that in most cases, the first one would conquer the world. And while it sounds terrible for an American to say “Truman should have conquered the world”, if you think about it in a more abstract, universe-wide way, that does reduce the chances of armageddon.
Anyway, there are a certain number of nuclear powers we can’t do anything about–genie’s out of the bottle. Is Pakistan in that category? I know they have nukes, but do they have ICBMs? In any event, that’s another case where I think we (meaning not just the U.S. but all the nuclear powers) should have drawn a line. Too much of a risk of an Islamist getting control of the arsenal.
Again: I’m a Democrat, so I’m not sure what “lens” you’re referring to. And even if I were a Republican, I’d like to think I’d be one of the decent ones like Corker or Flake. Donald Trump is an absolute nightmare, and really embarrassing to boot.
Still, I don’t agree that he’s as much of a raving lunatic as Kim Jong Un. (I think Trump actually ranks third in “raving lunacy” among world leaders, also behind Duterte, who thankfully does not have access to a nuclear arsenal.) Not to mention that as you say, the institutions around Trump are far better than those around KJU.
ETA: Monty, I *absolutely *care if your wife dies. I just care more whether mine dies. I think that’s pretty standard!
Strange. I don’t know many Democrats that support tens of thousands of civilian deaths because they irrationally “fear for their children”
You kind of begged that question, slipping in “irrationally”. 
But you’re entitled to that opinion.
And you’re right that most Democrats would agree with you on that point. Lots of peaceniks in the party–I’m obviously not one. But I *am *into stuff like: “soak the rich” progressive taxation; universal health care; robust spending on public education (and making standards the same nationwide); increasing the minimum wage; instituting a basic income; tightly regulating industry for health, safety, and environmental impact; offering strong incentives for the use of clean energy; spending lots of tax dollars on public media, the arts, medical research, and basic science; instituting “sin taxes” on unhealthful foods and making sure schoolkids get good nutrition, Michelle Obama style; etc. What other party than the Democratic Party could I possibly adhere to with all those policy preferences? I just have to roll my eyes and deal with the peaceniks and America-lasters.
Sorry, misread the post 
That’s cool. But with that kind of outlook, it would seem like other scenarios would occur to you besides “killing thousands of civilians to ensure a dictator doesn’t hurt my children”
‘Ready to die’: Modesto man suspect in planned Christmas attack in San Francisco
Not a tweet from the Howling Yam. I guess he doesn’t care about home grown Muslim terrorists.
hmm… I’ve read 5 books about Kim. And I don’t think he’s as much as a raving loon as Trump. Kim IS playing chess. Trump is just tossing the pieces about the board and claiming that he is winning.
I DON’T consider Trumps administration, or the Republican congress to be better than those institutions around KJU. The people in power under KJU do so under threat of a bullet (as is seen over and over[not to mention 3 generations of their family being ‘re-educated’]).
Trumps institutions and collaborators are in it for themselves WILLINGLY hoping to squeeze anything out of the moron in chief to put a few more bucks in their overflowing pockets.
Now, Trumps supporters, the people that voted for him, are a whole 'nother kettle of fish.
I say this as a well off 57 year old white man. The tomfoolery of the tax bill will put more money in my pocket.
Trump rates third as a raving lunatic for world leaders? Lovely.
The problem with America is that we don’t win anymore. We used to win, a lot. That seemed to change with Korea, where the US fought to this eternal stalemate instead of a victory. Well, a military victory over NK would certainly be a win, and more people would be tired of winning than believe it now, believe me.
How acceptable is it to live in a world where NK is armed with nuclear ICBMs? Do we really want to go there? But of course there is an excluded middle here. For instance, the UN just imposed new sanctions
IIRC, China has not been game for cutting off fuel before now. This may hurt NK a lot, and that population is not exactly comfortable now. If they proceed further with their nuclear program, they can be cut off even more painfully.
We get a disaster no matter what. Millions of starving North Koreans. Or maybe a war, or maybe somebody gets nuked. No truly good choices AFAICT.