Every president says a nuclear NK is not an option yet none of them stopped NK from obtaining them.

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The end game is either war or diplomacy. Trump is taking us to the former faster than any other president.

And if he ends up with the blood of a million or so South Koreans and US troops on his hands ...

He will blame it on Obama

There! Can you read your own writing?

Dumb ass!

Bet $500 that if Trump either starts or provokes a war that kills hundreds of thousands he won't blame it on Obama within a week?

Sign Here

X___________________________

There is enough blame to go around, starting with Clintoon!

 

[DrLove]

The end game is either war or diplomacy. Trump is taking us to the former faster than any other president.

And if he ends up with the blood of a million or so South Koreans and US troops on his hands ...

He will blame it on Obama

There! Can you read your own writing?

Dumb ass!

Bet $500 that if Trump either starts or provokes a war that kills hundreds of thousands he won't blame it on Obama within a week?

Sign Here

X___________________________

There is enough blame to go around, starting with Clintoon!

Oh - I thought you were saying that Obama wouldn't be the first person he'd blame it on???

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I really do think Trump's gonna take North Korea out.

Nah, and Trump supporters better hope he doesn't try. For, if he orders such a hamhanded move, the military will refuse, and Trump will be impeached so fast, it will make our heads spin.

It's do-able. And i think Trump's gonna do it.

Trump can't do it. The military, obeying his order, can. And they won't.

Why do you think that? Do military commanders usually refuse to follow orders on your planet?

Of course they don't. But then again, we don't typically have a mentally and tempermentally unfit President giving those orders.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

As much damage as NK will do now, they'll do even more damage later if we don't.

To whom, exactly? Mutually assured destruction applies as much to them as it does to anyone else. In fact, I would wager that a nuclear North Korea would be safer than a nuclear Pakistan.

Rip that band aid off.

Huh?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

In four seconds?

Yes, it's technically possible. Though I see where you are going, and i don't disagree.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, a link to an NK missile landing in Japan's EEZ, you know, Japanese waters of at least some degree.

Dude, look it up.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What do you propose should be done?

Invasion?

That option is sadly becoming ever more probable. It's a shame your hero, the obummer, didn't do squat about this little nutjob.

Do squat....like what? Go on, complete your thought...

 

[Slyhunter]

As much damage as NK will do now, they'll do even more damage later if we don't.

To whom, exactly? Mutually assured destruction applies as much to them as it does to anyone else. In fact, I would wager that a nuclear North Korea would be safer than a nuclear Pakistan.

Rip that band aid off.

Huh?

Jump in the deep end.
You suffer less pain diving in and doing what needs to be done then you suffer with incrementalism/appeasement stalling things out.

Iran would've been better if Bush had not waited on Collin Powell ***** footing around with the UN.
NK is going to be painful no matter what we do. But they'll be more painful if we wait then if we just get r' done.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Jump in the deep end.
You suffer less pain diving in and doing what needs to be done then you suffer with incrementalism/appeasement stalling things out.

While empty, pretty metaphor may be convincing to a child, it doesn't say anything to me at all. Could you put this in plain terms, regarding this topic?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

NK is going to be painful no matter what we do.

Unless they just sit there and keep being North Korea, and don't lob a missile at us and our allies.

 

[Slyhunter]

Jump in the deep end.
You suffer less pain diving in and doing what needs to be done then you suffer with incrementalism/appeasement stalling things out.

While empty, pretty metaphor may be convincing to a child, it doesn't say anything to me at all. Could you put this in plain terms, regarding this topic?

Either we attack him now and stop him, or we'll have to attack him later when he's stronger better able to give out damage.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Jump in the deep end.
You suffer less pain diving in and doing what needs to be done then you suffer with incrementalism/appeasement stalling things out.

While empty, pretty metaphor may be convincing to a child, it doesn't say anything to me at all. Could you put this in plain terms, regarding this topic?

Either we attack him now and stop him, or we'll have to attack him later when he's stronger better able to give out damage.

Or not attack them at all. I see the thinking there, but clearly nobody thinks he will lob a nuke at us. Else we would already have attacked.

 

[Slyhunter]

Jump in the deep end.
You suffer less pain diving in and doing what needs to be done then you suffer with incrementalism/appeasement stalling things out.

While empty, pretty metaphor may be convincing to a child, it doesn't say anything to me at all. Could you put this in plain terms, regarding this topic?

Either we attack him now and stop him, or we'll have to attack him later when he's stronger better able to give out damage.

Or not attack them at all. I see the thinking there, but clearly nobody thinks he will lob a nuke at us. Else we would already have attacked.

He will threaten us with nukes if we don't throw money, and other welfare goodies at his ass.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Jump in the deep end.
You suffer less pain diving in and doing what needs to be done then you suffer with incrementalism/appeasement stalling things out.

While empty, pretty metaphor may be convincing to a child, it doesn't say anything to me at all. Could you put this in plain terms, regarding this topic?

Either we attack him now and stop him, or we'll have to attack him later when he's stronger better able to give out damage.

Or not attack them at all. I see the thinking there, but clearly nobody thinks he will lob a nuke at us. Else we would already have attacked.

He will threaten us with nukes if we don't throw money, and other welfare goodies at his ass.

Russia threatens us with nukes, too. They have hundreds pointed at us as I type this.

 

[Slyhunter]

Jump in the deep end.
You suffer less pain diving in and doing what needs to be done then you suffer with incrementalism/appeasement stalling things out.

While empty, pretty metaphor may be convincing to a child, it doesn't say anything to me at all. Could you put this in plain terms, regarding this topic?

Either we attack him now and stop him, or we'll have to attack him later when he's stronger better able to give out damage.

Or not attack them at all. I see the thinking there, but clearly nobody thinks he will lob a nuke at us. Else we would already have attacked.

He will threaten us with nukes if we don't throw money, and other welfare goodies at his ass.

Russia threatens us with nukes, too. They have hundreds pointed at us as I type this.

You need to break out a dictionary and look up threat.

 

[Dschrute3]

I really do think Trump's gonna take North Korea out.

Nah, and Trump supporters better hope he doesn't try. For, if he orders such a hamhanded move, the military will refuse, and Trump will be impeached so fast, it will make our heads spin.

It's do-able. And i think Trump's gonna do it.

Trump can't do it. The military, obeying his order, can. And they won't.

Why do you think that? Do military commanders usually refuse to follow orders on your planet?

Of course they don't. But then again, we don't typically have a mentally and tempermentally unfit President giving those orders.

Lay off the Democrat Fake News, kid.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

While empty, pretty metaphor may be convincing to a child, it doesn't say anything to me at all. Could you put this in plain terms, regarding this topic?

Either we attack him now and stop him, or we'll have to attack him later when he's stronger better able to give out damage.

Or not attack them at all. I see the thinking there, but clearly nobody thinks he will lob a nuke at us. Else we would already have attacked.

He will threaten us with nukes if we don't throw money, and other welfare goodies at his ass.

Russia threatens us with nukes, too. They have hundreds pointed at us as I type this.

You need to break out a dictionary and look up threat.

And you need to acknowledge that some threats are only verbal and more empty.... like, when a little guy says he is going to kill you, versus when a huge guy has a bazooka pointed at you.

Point being, silliness aside, that some threats are worse than others. I think you are onto something, in that, now that we know it's either reality or will soon be reality that he can lob a nuclear warhead into one of our metro areas, Kim will talk less about a first strike.

 

[Slyhunter]

Either we attack him now and stop him, or we'll have to attack him later when he's stronger better able to give out damage.

Or not attack them at all. I see the thinking there, but clearly nobody thinks he will lob a nuke at us. Else we would already have attacked.

He will threaten us with nukes if we don't throw money, and other welfare goodies at his ass.

Russia threatens us with nukes, too. They have hundreds pointed at us as I type this.

You need to break out a dictionary and look up threat.

And you need to acknowledge that some threats are only verbal and more empty.... like, when a little guy says he is going to kill you, versus when a huge guy has a bazooka pointed at you.

Point being, silliness aside, that some threats are worse than others. I think you are onto something, in that, now that we know it's either reality or will soon be reality that he can lob a nuclear warhead into one of our metro areas, Kim will talk less about a first strike.

How about a little guy holding a nuke on you, give us your charity or else! We'll be paying welfare payments to every North Korea to keep him from pulling the trigger.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Or not attack them at all. I see the thinking there, but clearly nobody thinks he will lob a nuke at us. Else we would already have attacked.

He will threaten us with nukes if we don't throw money, and other welfare goodies at his ass.

Russia threatens us with nukes, too. They have hundreds pointed at us as I type this.

You need to break out a dictionary and look up threat.

And you need to acknowledge that some threats are only verbal and more empty.... like, when a little guy says he is going to kill you, versus when a huge guy has a bazooka pointed at you.

Point being, silliness aside, that some threats are worse than others. I think you are onto something, in that, now that we know it's either reality or will soon be reality that he can lob a nuclear warhead into one of our metro areas, Kim will talk less about a first strike.

How about a little guy holding a nuke on you, give us your charity or else! We'll be paying welfare payments to every North Korea to keep him from pulling the trigger.

Well i think such an analogy would only be apt if they both gain the capability and keep saying they are going to strike us first.

 

[Billy000]

Will Trump put an end to this supposed horrible threat or is he, like every president before him, just going to give Americans lip service?

I don't see any differences other than harsher rhetoric. What's the end game here?

Ok yes, every president has failed in keeping NK from getting nuclear weapons. When people complain about this, they never say what Presidents SHOULD have done. What should Bush and Obama have done short of declaring war? Be specific. I also don’t expect Trump to be able to do anything about it either.