Obama had us at near world peace. Trump taking us to war ..

[I amso IR]

Basically what i'm hearing from rabid Trump-Hater Democrats, is that he's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. He supposedly turns away the 'armada' and avoids all-out War, and they're bitterly angry about that. But if he engages in conflict with North Korea, they'll be bitterly angry about that too.

So, Democrats are simply full of shite in the end. They're just playing the old tired 'Party before Country' game. They just want the power back. And they're willing to say or do anything to get it back. They're gonna savagely attack Trump no matter what he does. They're very shallow hateful folks. It is what it is.

Trump didn't turn back the "armada". He never sent one in the first place.

So now Trump don't have three carrier groups headed for NK?




What do you think pretend military guy that ships can cover thousands of miles in a hour now?

.

As we say in the Army, "it all depends on the situation and terrain." Now I have to admit that when it was announced the Carrier Group was still headed south on the other side of the equator, I began to feel somewhat uneasy. Some how that seems like unfavorable terrain and combine that with being south of the equator, perhaps not the best situation. I am not certain if a Carrier Group has a long range missile capability or not. How about it all you "anchor clankers" does a Carrier Group have a three thousand mile mlissile capability on any of it's ships or subs? If so, North Korea is no problem from south of the equator. If not, aw shucks! I do know this however, if you intend to engage a ground target with artillery and you are more than 25 miles from from that target, perhaps you should move a tad closer than 25 miles, when using a long range artillery battery such as the 8 inch gun. And then it would be nice to have Sneaky Pete close enough to lase or "paint" the target so the fuse can detect and guide the projectile to that target. Any thing less is outdated and soooo yesterday. Artillery saturation is costly and ineffective and precision is so much the big event. Collateral damage gives the press and liberal factions something to bitch about and raise hell about, like it really matters? Were it that important, there would be no war, anywhere. Just my Army mind unfolding here.

Sure alot of babbling to just say the obvious that the United States can hit and nuke any target on earth in seconds

Anything to assist your non-military mind not to mention, loss to the Dolphins along, Bear513. I also was mistakenly a huge Bear fan back in the day. The difference between us, I suppose, is I like winners which the Bears fail to do on a consistent basis and the Bronco's have been doing on a more consistent basis. You are spot on with the the "from any point on earth" view however. If one is capable of putting something somewhere, in this day and age, then it stands to reason one the has the ability to put something from "there" to a location elsewhere. I simply do not know if the United States Navy is equipped to do that at this point. The US Army developed that ability back in the 1960's and were on track to becoming very good at it until the US AIr Force cried foul and the Congress listened and accepted what the AF said as soothe. ICBM's the Congress decided do in fact belong to the Air Force, a fact which they, the AF, has now tired of some years later and wishes would be the boondoggle of the US Army. That further illustrates the "old axiom" of being careful what you ask for," thing" and the fact that the US Army still uses the old and bold, time proven, 8 inch gun while the AF attempts to produce "Star Wars" fighters and does a sloppy job of that. Lets face it, sloppy seems in these days. And you think my first response was verbose and "babbling'? Hell fella, I'm just warming up! Would you like some more? I'm primed and ready!

 

[Correll]

IMO, Korea is a mess that we have little leverage over and little responsibility for.

Regardless, we must do what necessity presents us.

No, we must not. If there is no path forward, that is not a high risk of being a nuclear bloodbath, then we can choose to do NOT GO FORWARD.

That leaves the possibility that it might blow up later. But then again it might not.


Maybe someday, China will develop into a more responsible nation, and stop protecting a madman who likes to play with nuclear weapons.

I disagree. Given time, the DPRK will simply become more powerful and dangerous, presenting an even larger problem.

Perhaps China will take action, perhaps not.

Become more powerful? Because it has such as growing economy? Because it's neighbors are declining while is it growing every larger?

LOL!!

We have no leverage. This is not our job to fix.

Because it will soon have ICBMs.

If, 30 years after Reagan announced the Strategic Defense Initiative, we can't shoot down one or two, North Korean "ICBM"s, that is on US.


North Korean is the place in the world, were US leverage and power is the LEAST.

This is not our problem to fix.

 

[charwin95]

As obama left the office in his wake was about as much world peace as we have seen maybe ever . Think about it. Sure their are some mostly civil war hot spots in the Mideast and parts of Africa , but overall there's no active warring countries .

Conservatives and Trump hate that . Their war machine masters do not approve . Just a few months in, they are already on the warpath .

A vote for the GOP is a vote for war .

You have a strange idea of what constitutes world peace.

What constitutes is ------- we don't go to war. That is called peace------ Right now Tillerson, Mathis and Trump all pumping their chests showing bullshit muscles--------- If we go to war, millions will die, flow of refugees and the whole world will blame Trump.

 

[charwin95]

Yep, war is on the horizon, I can feel it.

I agree with you Trump now have to face all the ennemis that Obama ignore when he was in the office.

So in first 100 days how many enemy/friends did Trump gained or loss?

 

[Correll]

As obama left the office in his wake was about as much world peace as we have seen maybe ever . Think about it. Sure their are some mostly civil war hot spots in the Mideast and parts of Africa , but overall there's no active warring countries .

Conservatives and Trump hate that . Their war machine masters do not approve . Just a few months in, they are already on the warpath .

A vote for the GOP is a vote for war .

You have a strange idea of what constitutes world peace.

What constitutes is ------- we don't go to war. That is called peace------ Right now Tillerson, Mathis and Trump all pumping their chests showing bullshit muscles--------- If we go to war, millions will die, flow of refugees and the whole world will blame Trump.

So, you don't support the attempt to attack Trump for lack of action or not effective action? Thus pressuring him to take further more aggressive action?

 

[charwin95]

You know, there are several things about Trump that bother me.

When Syria used chemical weapons, he didn't take out the runway, nor did he bomb the bunkers where they had the weapons.

Now? It's coming to light that the "armada" that Trump promised to send over isn't even there right now, one of the carriers was going in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION.

And this morning, it's been reported that Russia has flown bombers TWICE close to Alaska airspace. You know, the Tupelovs that are the Russian equivalent of our B52's?

Nope, his weak responses thus far are only encouraging other nations to see how far they can push us.

And, Tillerson said just this afternoon that if Iran continues on it's current course, they are going to be walking down the same path as N. Korea.

Yep, war is on the horizon, I can feel it.

What do you want? Sounds like y'all are screeching for war with Syria, Yemen, Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea? All at the same time. Is that what y'all really want? Seems pretty deranged. Maybe you should rethink things a bit.

They constantly attack him for inaction, creating pressure for action.


If he acts, they attack him for that.


They constantly claim that they believe him to be incompetent.


But if he is incompetent why do they push him to tackle incredibly difficult situations that could easily blow up into bloodbaths?

H should know how to balance it--------- since he is incompetent--------- he chooses whoever is making the loud noise. Maybe he should resign.

 

[charwin95]

You know, there are several things about Trump that bother me.

When Syria used chemical weapons, he didn't take out the runway, nor did he bomb the bunkers where they had the weapons.

Now? It's coming to light that the "armada" that Trump promised to send over isn't even there right now, one of the carriers was going in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION.

And this morning, it's been reported that Russia has flown bombers TWICE close to Alaska airspace. You know, the Tupelovs that are the Russian equivalent of our B52's?

Nope, his weak responses thus far are only encouraging other nations to see how far they can push us.

And, Tillerson said just this afternoon that if Iran continues on it's current course, they are going to be walking down the same path as N. Korea.

Yep, war is on the horizon, I can feel it.

So, you don't support the LEft's constant condemnation of him, for inaction?

I don't support either the right or the left, because I'm an Independent.

And, because I spent 20 years in the Navy, as well as served in 4 war zones, I know that when you attack an airbase, you take out the runway as well.

And, I also know that if you are threatening to send an "armada" as a show of force, you make sure you have the ships available to send BEFORE announcing you are sending them.

Both responses sucked militarily.

And for the past 2 days, Russia has been flying Tupelov bombers around Alaska.

Doesn't look like Trump has intimidated anyone yet.

During campaign he repeatedly attack Obama that Putin don't respect Obama---------Last 4 days Russian bomber enter our airspace four times. Enough of respect crap.

 

[Correll]

You know, there are several things about Trump that bother me.

When Syria used chemical weapons, he didn't take out the runway, nor did he bomb the bunkers where they had the weapons.

Now? It's coming to light that the "armada" that Trump promised to send over isn't even there right now, one of the carriers was going in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION.

And this morning, it's been reported that Russia has flown bombers TWICE close to Alaska airspace. You know, the Tupelovs that are the Russian equivalent of our B52's?

Nope, his weak responses thus far are only encouraging other nations to see how far they can push us.

And, Tillerson said just this afternoon that if Iran continues on it's current course, they are going to be walking down the same path as N. Korea.

Yep, war is on the horizon, I can feel it.

What do you want? Sounds like y'all are screeching for war with Syria, Yemen, Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea? All at the same time. Is that what y'all really want? Seems pretty deranged. Maybe you should rethink things a bit.

They constantly attack him for inaction, creating pressure for action.


If he acts, they attack him for that.


They constantly claim that they believe him to be incompetent.


But if he is incompetent why do they push him to tackle incredibly difficult situations that could easily blow up into bloodbaths?

H should know how to balance it--------- since he is incompetent--------- he chooses whoever is making the loud noise. Maybe he should resign.

SO, you view him as incompetent, and believe that he is going to react to whomever is making the most noise.


So, do you thus, lend your voice to those how are pushing for non-intervention, or do you support those who are making political hay by slamming him for inaction?

Do you want to drive the man you consider incompetent to take more aggressive action in dealing with the hair trigger nuclear booby trap that is North Korea?

 

[charwin95]

You know, there are several things about Trump that bother me.

When Syria used chemical weapons, he didn't take out the runway, nor did he bomb the bunkers where they had the weapons.

Now? It's coming to light that the "armada" that Trump promised to send over isn't even there right now, one of the carriers was going in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION.

And this morning, it's been reported that Russia has flown bombers TWICE close to Alaska airspace. You know, the Tupelovs that are the Russian equivalent of our B52's?

Nope, his weak responses thus far are only encouraging other nations to see how far they can push us.

And, Tillerson said just this afternoon that if Iran continues on it's current course, they are going to be walking down the same path as N. Korea.

Yep, war is on the horizon, I can feel it.

So, you don't support the LEft's constant condemnation of him, for inaction?

I don't support either the right or the left, because I'm an Independent.

And, because I spent 20 years in the Navy, as well as served in 4 war zones, I know that when you attack an airbase, you take out the runway as well.

And, I also know that if you are threatening to send an "armada" as a show of force, you make sure you have the ships available to send BEFORE announcing you are sending them.

Both responses sucked militarily.

And for the past 2 days, Russia has been flying Tupelov bombers around Alaska.

Doesn't look like Trump has intimidated anyone yet.

So, my question, Do you or do you not support the nearly CONSTANT condemnation of Trump for INaction, thus creating pressure for action, mostly coming from the Left?

Trump deserves all the condensations for being incompetent.

 

[Correll]

You know, there are several things about Trump that bother me.

When Syria used chemical weapons, he didn't take out the runway, nor did he bomb the bunkers where they had the weapons.

Now? It's coming to light that the "armada" that Trump promised to send over isn't even there right now, one of the carriers was going in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION.

And this morning, it's been reported that Russia has flown bombers TWICE close to Alaska airspace. You know, the Tupelovs that are the Russian equivalent of our B52's?

Nope, his weak responses thus far are only encouraging other nations to see how far they can push us.

And, Tillerson said just this afternoon that if Iran continues on it's current course, they are going to be walking down the same path as N. Korea.

Yep, war is on the horizon, I can feel it.

So, you don't support the LEft's constant condemnation of him, for inaction?

I don't support either the right or the left, because I'm an Independent.

And, because I spent 20 years in the Navy, as well as served in 4 war zones, I know that when you attack an airbase, you take out the runway as well.

And, I also know that if you are threatening to send an "armada" as a show of force, you make sure you have the ships available to send BEFORE announcing you are sending them.

Both responses sucked militarily.

And for the past 2 days, Russia has been flying Tupelov bombers around Alaska.

Doesn't look like Trump has intimidated anyone yet.

So, my question, Do you or do you not support the nearly CONSTANT condemnation of Trump for INaction, thus creating pressure for action, mostly coming from the Left?

Trump deserves all the condensations for being incompetent.

So, you opt for making political hay, by attacking Trump for inaction, even though you consider him incompetent and realize that by doing so, you will be creating political pressure for him to try his hand at dealing with a nuclear powder keg, with millions of lives in the balance.


Incredible.


I don't know how to respond to that.

 

[charwin95]

You know, there are several things about Trump that bother me.

When Syria used chemical weapons, he didn't take out the runway, nor did he bomb the bunkers where they had the weapons.

Now? It's coming to light that the "armada" that Trump promised to send over isn't even there right now, one of the carriers was going in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION.

And this morning, it's been reported that Russia has flown bombers TWICE close to Alaska airspace. You know, the Tupelovs that are the Russian equivalent of our B52's?

Nope, his weak responses thus far are only encouraging other nations to see how far they can push us.

And, Tillerson said just this afternoon that if Iran continues on it's current course, they are going to be walking down the same path as N. Korea.

Yep, war is on the horizon, I can feel it.

What do you want? Sounds like y'all are screeching for war with Syria, Yemen, Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea? All at the same time. Is that what y'all really want? Seems pretty deranged. Maybe you should rethink things a bit.

They constantly attack him for inaction, creating pressure for action.


If he acts, they attack him for that.


They constantly claim that they believe him to be incompetent.


But if he is incompetent why do they push him to tackle incredibly difficult situations that could easily blow up into bloodbaths?

H should know how to balance it--------- since he is incompetent--------- he chooses whoever is making the loud noise. Maybe he should resign.

SO, you view him as incompetent, and believe that he is going to react to whomever is making the most noise.


So, do you thus, lend your voice to those how are pushing for non-intervention, or do you support those who are making political hay by slamming him for inaction?

Do you want to drive the man you consider incompetent to take more aggressive action in dealing with the hair trigger nuclear booby trap that is North Korea?

A disciplined politician should have that quality of leadership but not a populist real state tycoon.
People been warned about incompetency.
As far as driving him to take aggressive action. ------- this was all discussed during the campaign of what we expected from Trump --------- We are very close to a war.

 

[Correll]

You know, there are several things about Trump that bother me.

When Syria used chemical weapons, he didn't take out the runway, nor did he bomb the bunkers where they had the weapons.

Now? It's coming to light that the "armada" that Trump promised to send over isn't even there right now, one of the carriers was going in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION.

And this morning, it's been reported that Russia has flown bombers TWICE close to Alaska airspace. You know, the Tupelovs that are the Russian equivalent of our B52's?

Nope, his weak responses thus far are only encouraging other nations to see how far they can push us.

And, Tillerson said just this afternoon that if Iran continues on it's current course, they are going to be walking down the same path as N. Korea.

Yep, war is on the horizon, I can feel it.

What do you want? Sounds like y'all are screeching for war with Syria, Yemen, Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea? All at the same time. Is that what y'all really want? Seems pretty deranged. Maybe you should rethink things a bit.

They constantly attack him for inaction, creating pressure for action.


If he acts, they attack him for that.


They constantly claim that they believe him to be incompetent.


But if he is incompetent why do they push him to tackle incredibly difficult situations that could easily blow up into bloodbaths?

H should know how to balance it--------- since he is incompetent--------- he chooses whoever is making the loud noise. Maybe he should resign.

SO, you view him as incompetent, and believe that he is going to react to whomever is making the most noise.


So, do you thus, lend your voice to those how are pushing for non-intervention, or do you support those who are making political hay by slamming him for inaction?

Do you want to drive the man you consider incompetent to take more aggressive action in dealing with the hair trigger nuclear booby trap that is North Korea?

A disciplined politician should have that quality of leadership but not a populist real state tycoon.
People been warned about incompetency.

The last 60 years worth of world leaders have failed to solve the North Korea issue.

As far as driving him to take aggressive action. ------- this was all discussed during the campaign of what we expected from Trump --------- We are very close to a war.

If the pressure was removed, from people like you, we would be very far from a war. YOu yourself just stated that Trump responds to the "loudest".

And you have lent your voice to the chorus for war. SO that you can make political hay. At potentially the cost of millions of lives....



What if the American people raised their voice(s) for non-intervention? Would that be so bad?

 

[charwin95]

You know, there are several things about Trump that bother me.

When Syria used chemical weapons, he didn't take out the runway, nor did he bomb the bunkers where they had the weapons.

Now? It's coming to light that the "armada" that Trump promised to send over isn't even there right now, one of the carriers was going in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION.

And this morning, it's been reported that Russia has flown bombers TWICE close to Alaska airspace. You know, the Tupelovs that are the Russian equivalent of our B52's?

Nope, his weak responses thus far are only encouraging other nations to see how far they can push us.

And, Tillerson said just this afternoon that if Iran continues on it's current course, they are going to be walking down the same path as N. Korea.

Yep, war is on the horizon, I can feel it.

So, you don't support the LEft's constant condemnation of him, for inaction?

I don't support either the right or the left, because I'm an Independent.

And, because I spent 20 years in the Navy, as well as served in 4 war zones, I know that when you attack an airbase, you take out the runway as well.

And, I also know that if you are threatening to send an "armada" as a show of force, you make sure you have the ships available to send BEFORE announcing you are sending them.

Both responses sucked militarily.

And for the past 2 days, Russia has been flying Tupelov bombers around Alaska.

Doesn't look like Trump has intimidated anyone yet.

So, my question, Do you or do you not support the nearly CONSTANT condemnation of Trump for INaction, thus creating pressure for action, mostly coming from the Left?

Trump deserves all the condensations for being incompetent.

So, you opt for making political hay, by attacking Trump for inaction, even though you consider him incompetent and realize that by doing so, you will be creating political pressure for him to try his hand at dealing with a nuclear powder keg, with millions of lives in the balance.


Incredible.


I don't know how to respond to that.

Being a leader of the free world ---------- he should be able to stand heavy pressure from his own republican and supporters----------- drumming for war.

 

[Ringel05]

As obama left the office in his wake was about as much world peace as we have seen maybe ever . Think about it. Sure their are some mostly civil war hot spots in the Mideast and parts of Africa , but overall there's no active warring countries .

Conservatives and Trump hate that . Their war machine masters do not approve . Just a few months in, they are already on the warpath .

A vote for the GOP is a vote for war .

You have a strange idea of what constitutes world peace.

What constitutes is ------- we don't go to war. That is called peace------ Right now Tillerson, Mathis and Trump all pumping their chests showing bullshit muscles--------- If we go to war, millions will die, flow of refugees and the whole world will blame Trump.

Not a Trump fan but you're so full of shit your eyes are brown.

 

[Ringel05]

What do you want? Sounds like y'all are screeching for war with Syria, Yemen, Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea? All at the same time. Is that what y'all really want? Seems pretty deranged. Maybe you should rethink things a bit.

They constantly attack him for inaction, creating pressure for action.


If he acts, they attack him for that.


They constantly claim that they believe him to be incompetent.


But if he is incompetent why do they push him to tackle incredibly difficult situations that could easily blow up into bloodbaths?

H should know how to balance it--------- since he is incompetent--------- he chooses whoever is making the loud noise. Maybe he should resign.

SO, you view him as incompetent, and believe that he is going to react to whomever is making the most noise.


So, do you thus, lend your voice to those how are pushing for non-intervention, or do you support those who are making political hay by slamming him for inaction?

Do you want to drive the man you consider incompetent to take more aggressive action in dealing with the hair trigger nuclear booby trap that is North Korea?

A disciplined politician should have that quality of leadership but not a populist real state tycoon.
People been warned about incompetency.

The last 60 years worth of world leaders have failed to solve the North Korea issue.

As far as driving him to take aggressive action. ------- this was all discussed during the campaign of what we expected from Trump --------- We are very close to a war.

If the pressure was removed, from people like you, we would be very far from a war. YOu yourself just stated that Trump responds to the "loudest".

And you have lent your voice to the chorus for war. SO that you can make political hay. At potentially the cost of millions of lives....



What if the American people raised their voice(s) for non-intervention? Would that be so bad?

60 years of world leaders have given lip service to the so called NK problem, no one really want's it "solved" China and the US like it there as a buffer, South Korea doesn't want to absorb the north, the economic issues could prove disastrous and NK likes to rattle sabers so everyone else comes to the extortion table to pay them to be quiet. That's the reality.

 

[Correll]

So, you don't support the LEft's constant condemnation of him, for inaction?

I don't support either the right or the left, because I'm an Independent.

And, because I spent 20 years in the Navy, as well as served in 4 war zones, I know that when you attack an airbase, you take out the runway as well.

And, I also know that if you are threatening to send an "armada" as a show of force, you make sure you have the ships available to send BEFORE announcing you are sending them.

Both responses sucked militarily.

And for the past 2 days, Russia has been flying Tupelov bombers around Alaska.

Doesn't look like Trump has intimidated anyone yet.

So, my question, Do you or do you not support the nearly CONSTANT condemnation of Trump for INaction, thus creating pressure for action, mostly coming from the Left?

Trump deserves all the condensations for being incompetent.

So, you opt for making political hay, by attacking Trump for inaction, even though you consider him incompetent and realize that by doing so, you will be creating political pressure for him to try his hand at dealing with a nuclear powder keg, with millions of lives in the balance.


Incredible.


I don't know how to respond to that.

Being a leader of the free world ---------- he should be able to stand heavy pressure from his own republican and supporters----------- drumming for war.

YOu know that your voice can have an impact, and you are raising it in favor of war because you think it will benefit you politically.


What type of person puts his short term partisan political gain over the lives of, at least tens of thousands of people, (if not MILLIONS)?


HInt: It is the type of person YOU are.

 

[Correll]

They constantly attack him for inaction, creating pressure for action.


If he acts, they attack him for that.


They constantly claim that they believe him to be incompetent.


But if he is incompetent why do they push him to tackle incredibly difficult situations that could easily blow up into bloodbaths?

H should know how to balance it--------- since he is incompetent--------- he chooses whoever is making the loud noise. Maybe he should resign.

SO, you view him as incompetent, and believe that he is going to react to whomever is making the most noise.


So, do you thus, lend your voice to those how are pushing for non-intervention, or do you support those who are making political hay by slamming him for inaction?

Do you want to drive the man you consider incompetent to take more aggressive action in dealing with the hair trigger nuclear booby trap that is North Korea?

A disciplined politician should have that quality of leadership but not a populist real state tycoon.
People been warned about incompetency.

The last 60 years worth of world leaders have failed to solve the North Korea issue.

As far as driving him to take aggressive action. ------- this was all discussed during the campaign of what we expected from Trump --------- We are very close to a war.

If the pressure was removed, from people like you, we would be very far from a war. YOu yourself just stated that Trump responds to the "loudest".

And you have lent your voice to the chorus for war. SO that you can make political hay. At potentially the cost of millions of lives....



What if the American people raised their voice(s) for non-intervention? Would that be so bad?

60 years of world leaders have given lip service to the so called NK problem, no one really want's it "solved" China and the US like it there as a buffer, South Korea doesn't want to absorb the north, the economic issues could prove disastrous and NK likes to rattle sabers so everyone else comes to the extortion table to pay them to be quiet. That's the reality.

All the more reason, NOT to push Trump to solve it NOW.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Regardless, we must do what necessity presents us.

No, we must not. If there is no path forward, that is not a high risk of being a nuclear bloodbath, then we can choose to do NOT GO FORWARD.

That leaves the possibility that it might blow up later. But then again it might not.


Maybe someday, China will develop into a more responsible nation, and stop protecting a madman who likes to play with nuclear weapons.

I disagree. Given time, the DPRK will simply become more powerful and dangerous, presenting an even larger problem.

Perhaps China will take action, perhaps not.

Become more powerful? Because it has such as growing economy? Because it's neighbors are declining while is it growing every larger?

LOL!!

We have no leverage. This is not our job to fix.

Because it will soon have ICBMs.

If, 30 years after Reagan announced the Strategic Defense Initiative, we can't shoot down one or two, North Korean "ICBM"s, that is on US.

Regardless of who it is on, reports indicate we will not have that sure capability before 2020, which leaves Kim a potential window.

 

[Correll]

No, we must not. If there is no path forward, that is not a high risk of being a nuclear bloodbath, then we can choose to do NOT GO FORWARD.

That leaves the possibility that it might blow up later. But then again it might not.


Maybe someday, China will develop into a more responsible nation, and stop protecting a madman who likes to play with nuclear weapons.

I disagree. Given time, the DPRK will simply become more powerful and dangerous, presenting an even larger problem.

Perhaps China will take action, perhaps not.

Become more powerful? Because it has such as growing economy? Because it's neighbors are declining while is it growing every larger?

LOL!!

We have no leverage. This is not our job to fix.

Because it will soon have ICBMs.

If, 30 years after Reagan announced the Strategic Defense Initiative, we can't shoot down one or two, North Korean "ICBM"s, that is on US.

Regardless of who it is on, reports indicate we will not have that sure capability before 2020, which leaves Kim a potential window.

That's unfortunate. Because we still have no leverage or power in that powder keg.

Let's just hope then, that Kim knows that nuking the US would be suicide.

 

[Desperado]

Obama had us at near world peace.
Bullshit Obama had us at near surrender.
Open boarders, millions of dollars to our enemies.
Fortunately Trump won so the Hildabeast count not finish the surrender