Well, not the first time that fool in N. Korea has threatened nuclear Armageddon. The new variable is that we have an equally stupid fool here who's threatening "fire and fury" against N. Korea. Does Trump really mean it? Does he have the backing of the Pentagon? Or is Trump just talking out of his ass? I'm betting on the latter. There probably is no realistic way to launch a preemptive attack.
I'm disappointed in Trump already. He said he wasn't going to announce what he planned to do if he was going to do something so instead he lights up the war of words apparently because he doesn't have any plans to go war. I wondered if he was going to do something when he sent a fleet but apparently the fleet didn't even immediately head towards North Korea. Now he just got UN sanctions imposed but before any extra sanctions have an impact, he talks tough.
If he does do something, many thousands might die in SouthKorea because the US can't stop all that artillery in a strike. Plus NK has subs with missiles.
I'm not sure why anyone is surprised in two hot heads talking tough words. Maybe someone thinks Trumps first strike might be nuclear. That might be effective but it might kill most of North Korea and anger a lot of other countries. I guess if North Korea strikes Guam, Trump might do it.
I think the stock market was looking for an excuse to sell. He only thing new here is whether or not Notth Korea thinks trump is full of hot air. I always thought he might nuke North Korea and end the threat they pose. Get them to fire at us first. Technically we are already at war. I would prefer giving peace a bit more chance and letting calmer voices prevail until next month at a minimum.
Trump hurt my stock positions. Sell off hit right after his words were played on tv. I doubt he cares if he is hurting Americans retirement account etc. Makes me wonder if a birdie told him his. Business was short. He could really make a killing by going to war. Completely unethical of course.
Yeah, North Korea killing 50,000 or more will cause a stock sell off if that happens. Nuclear first strike might be Trumps first choice. Take out their subs too. Need to try to take out everything quickly. On the bright side I now have nuclear sun glasses. I can now safely look at the sun or nuclear bombs. Only problem might be my reaction time.
If Trump plans on nuking North Korea, he will likely want them to make the first strike so we can blame them when the world condemns the US for wiping out North Korea and the millions that used to live there. If North Korea's subs have nukes, that could be bad because lone subs might fire at anything in range. Hopefully the US is tracking every one of them ready to take them all out.
Who knows, Trump might be talking about using some super advanced top secret alien weapons we might have that could obliterate North Korea without nuclear radiation that work better than nudes. You know we have to have some good super weapons that haven't been shown to the world. Two hot heads in charge. What could go wrong? Right now I think Trump is more talk than action.
Nice heads tonight: N Korea is seriously considering a pre-emptive strike on Guam. Okay does seem that lucrative a target considering Seoul is much closer.
Actually this is caused by two children having a temper tantrum, with access to grown up toys. They are both fat fucks that can't excersise impulse control, which gives me great concern. Blundering into yet another war seems to be inevitable, unless we start electing some grown ups.
I know you enjoy criticizing Trump for anything you can, even if he were to put on his left shoe before his right.
Would it be better to allow them to threaten us and lead them to believe that there would be no repercussions if the follow through? Maybe we should even apologize for our way of life that for some reason offends them so.
Oh wait, that was our policy under the previous administration.
Well, Donald, in this case we would certainly wipe out S. Korea and Japan and a few other countries. But thanks for asking. A president with the nuclear codes really should be inquisitive.
"Donald Trump asked a foreign policy expert advising him why the U.S. can't use nuclear weapons, MSNBC's Joe Scarborough said on the air Wednesday, citing an unnamed source who claimed he had spoken with the GOP presidential nominee. "
MSNBC's Scarborough who vehemently hates Trump and works for a network that has had a jihad against Trump since he announced his intention to run for President and has never eased off on him throughout the primaries, the election, and his presidency cited an "unnamed" source that "claimed".
Yup you have to believe that has to be 100% accurate just like everything else NBC and it's affiliates, puts out. LOL
Just more of the same zero substance reactionary leftist agenda that you are known to post and have been continuously called on by several people here but you keep plugging away. YAWN
"Would it be better to allow them to threaten us and lead them to believe that there would be no repercussions if the follow through? Maybe we should even apologize for our way of life that for some reason offends them so.
Oh wait, that was our policy under the previous administration."
Flagooner, don't interject facts here as that confuses the hateful agenda pushers.
@OSU -> Being every-so-slightly left of center on TUSCL is considered a radical leftist agenda on TUSCL. I've often wondered why strip clubs attract right-wing and ultra-Libertarian weirdos.
Well i didn't vote for Trump and i'm honestly leery of the guy but the vendetta against him is the worst i've ever seen against a sitting Presdient, much more vicious than anything i recall against Reagan, the Bush and Clinton families, and Obama.
There's something wrong with anyone that contributes to or refuses to acknowledge that fact and they're not doing the USA any favors, they just embolden our enemies.
And i'd never be wary of a supposedly incognito don't wanna give myself away no review guy on a strip club review website that constantly posts an agenda pushing narrative.
Everything you say has to be true. Lol
If there was a war with North Korea nukes might be a good idea to bring it to an end quickly and reduce overall causalities. I'm thinking mostly tactical ones to deal with the North Korean artillery, but maybe 3 to 4 city destroyers: One to take out Pyongyang and the rest to take out their nuclear problem.
Getting increasingly hard to see how the N Korean problem goes away with a military conflict.
President Obama dealt with fat-boy, like the troll Kim is: President Obama ignored him. I understand the hawkish and conservative voters didn't t like that. OK.
But here, President Trump seems to be channeling his inner "Eisenhower" or his inner "Reagan." Not I'm not convinced that he's not copying them a little wrong, like he's missing some subtleties and nuances there.
When I think of a positive "Reagan" response that uses overwhelming power, I think of the SR-71 "Blackbird" flight over Libya to piss off Prime Minister Gaddafi. "Traveling at 1.6 miles per second, outrunning missiles, in and out -fast!" Using Stuxnet against Iran, is also in the same vein.
The United States is best when it uses overwhelming technical superiority to thumb back -- not Nucs. Nucs are not an appropriate response here.
@OSU: Just a quick primer on what it means to be an ultra-Libertarian weirdo:
(1) You believe that Government lending to the poor caused the last financial crisis
(2) You believe that the Government had no role in rescuing us from financial ruin after the last financial crisis.
(3) You believe that we should eliminate all of the previous regulations on our banking system.
I've heard all of this on TUSCL from multiple posters.
I will say that I feel optimistic about the direction of the country. There seems to be enough checks and balances to keep a nutcase like Trump from ruining the country. And I think enough moderate Republicans will start throwing him under the bus.
I do give the 'Prez a little slack in asking *why* he can or can't use Nucs. It's something we should we should always ask and remind ourselves from time to time. There's a realize reason why nuclear non-proliferation and M.A.D. where takeways from the 20th Century and the Reagan Administration. There's probably and entire generation (under 30) what don't remember any of that because they didn't live through it. So it's still a good dialog.
Though South Park philosophy does still apply. There are no stupid questions, only stupid people.
RandomMember, that's called a straw man argument. Misrepresent what libertarians stand for, then criticize them based on your made up facts.
Libertarians believe in limited government, not no government. We believe in reasonable regulations, not the elimination of regulations. We believe that when government over reaches ( like mandating that banks give mortgages to unqualified borrowers ), there are often unintended ( but predictable ) consequences.
@Mark94: I've worked on government and commercial contracts and I've seen some of the waste associated government contracts. Completely agree that we need intelligent, limited government.
However, if you believe that the financial crisis was caused by government lending to unqualified borrowers, then you are either incapable of understanding the facts or unwilling to look into the facts. That's not a straw man argument; it's the kind of nutty Libertarian views you see on TUSCL if you're here long enough.
This is a thread hijack -- so back to talking about nuclear Armageddon.
Dougster: of course we need to regulate financial institutions. The question is how and how much. Set up some reasonable regulations and monitor their compliance. Don't regulate them out of business with paperwork requirements, like we've done with small and regional banks.
Most of all has anyone here thought out what would happen in the event of a war with North Korea.
The first thing that would happen would be a tremendous build-up of forces, armor and naval assets in that area, most likely taking resources from many other strategic and dangerous places thousands of miles away. Next the Russians or the Iranians emboldened by the lack of attention would start to create more mischief than they have been. Once the first shots start flying don't be surprised if Israel feels the need to preemptively strike Iran, or Pakistan to launch an attack on India, or the Russians to try to march into some of the former Soviet States.
Any thinking person knows this will be a disaster, millions will die and become homeless and the world will blame and rightfully so, the people who didn't do their job, this needs to be avoided. The president needs to stop his bluster and start acting in the best interest of the American people. This thin skinned bully needs to start picking and choosing his battles based on what is good for this country not his own personal self interest.
Sorry @OSU he is being criticized very fairly whether you believe it or not. If the man would start to try to govern, instead of thinking he is the ruler, many of the attacks would stop and he might just get credit for some real accomplishments instead of crowd size arguments or tweeting, he needs to get to work and stop fucking around.
RM, the root cause of the financial crises was a high percent of mortgages made to people who any reasonable person could have seen would not be able to pay. These mortgages were made in response to government pressure.
Then, financial institutions exploded the situation by lying about the mortgages and selling them off to unsuspecting and unsophisticated buyers.
Government regulators were oblivious to this until it was too late.
There is plenty of blame to go around but it started with government good intentions ( and cluelessness).
One other point a war of this size, with this intensity, will set back not only the United States, but much of the world leading to the brink of a world wide depression, and will likely take half a century or more to repair the damage if it is even repairable.
"President Trump seems to be channeling his inner "Eisenhower" or his inner "Reagan." "
Actually it was Truman, a democrat, that said, "If they do not now accept our terms they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth..."
We avoided nuclear war with the Soviet Union because they knew we were prepared and able to devastate them. Without that credible threat, we'd all be speaking Russian now.
Trump has made it clear that, if the Nork's use a nuke against us, their country will be leveled. Even a nut like Kim understands that.
Trump may have used more colorful language than other Presidents, but this is the policy we've had since 1947.
Thanks for correcting me, but if you thinking adding the word "democrat" means anything to me -- as often as epithet thrown by the right to use verbal judo to demostrate the superiority of your position or the superiority of you ideas over me, that has no effect on me. I'm a logical, science based person who seeks truth and understanding. Therefore I take no offense. But I digress, thanks for your correction. I wasn't entirely sure the genesis of the hawkishness on display. I did think it came from that era. Thank you.
That's probably a good policy, since 1947, and it's good as a reminder so everyone is on the same page. I'm more interested in American interests than I am with a few unfortunate S. Koreas getting skewered. So for reason I'd be against using tactical thermonuclear weapon against N. Korea to save S. Korea but I would support it to save Americans.
And just as non-response emboldens our enemies, so would a thermonuclear response emboldens so others to action (Israel versus its enemies, Iran, Pakistan versus India, Russian versus former Soviet Republics, etc).
But regardless, whatever response needs to be appropriate and in Americans best interests. Though I do think he smug conservatives and smug libertarians here in Tuscl have a point RE: lack of response with the prior (and other) administrations.
Mr Obama tried to talk reasonably to this maniac and was viewed as cowardly/weak (chose your term) by the world despots who only understand strength from the end of a barrel. M.A.D. (mutually assured destruction) has been world policy since the USSR got nuclear weapons. There will always be someone who thinks he can win a nuclear war if the other side does not hit back. The president(who ever he is) MUST make them BELIEVE that if you hit us you will be scattered atoms a few minutes after you launch.
Fortunately, with all its insane logic, MAD works and has allowed many nations to mature enough to realize nuclear war is unwinnable for all sides but we must maintain the threat of retaliation in order deter maniacal despots.
The administration has managed to get China to back the latest sanctions. If they follow through North Korea no longer has a big ally on its northern border and the NK maniac may have a problem. He hardly feeds the people of North Korea now so with the new sanctions he will either; have to back off, shift focus to agriculture or start a shooting war he must know he will lose.
If the previous administration had not given in to NK's chief ally (Iran) or had not been so long on talk and unsupported threats, just like earlier administrations, he might have not gotten so bold.
When will politicians stop forgetting that if you are perceived as weak you cannot negotiate with strong arm dictators. Currently peace is achieved through strength.
The strength of the USA has kept the peace in Europe and a good portion of the world allowing for the skirmishes that are staged to consume excess weapons stores.
I do know, he may be just crazy enough to launch! I wonder if he has syphilis brain from the hookers he did before his old man croaked?
"I do know, he may be just crazy enough to launch! I wonder if he has syphilis brain from the hookers he did before his old man croaked?"
---------------------
That's possible. Anyway, look at the bright side: following a nuclear war on Trump's twitter feed would be really cool! And millennials have lived long enough, anyway.
Lost in the above discussions is the effect of a nuclear shootout with North Korea. Where do you all think the fallout would land? If there is a north wind, it ends up on South Korea. A south or East wind, it lands on China. A west wind and we put nuclear fallout on Japan for the third time in history, not counting the Fukijima disaster.
Even if there is no wind, a million North Korean Innocents will pay the price for that (or those) spoiled brat(s) stupidity.
Our only reasonable response would be to take out Kim's military infrastructure with our overwhelming air power and, hopefully, to shoot down his ballistic missiles.
Or, we could send in a special ops team to silence the little bastard for good. The best bet might be for ys to deliver a South Korean hit team.
"dumdum membr u ben PEGGED__________DUMBAZZ!"
--------
Sorry @Tx but you're not permitted to troll me. I'm always the troll-er not the troll-ee. You need to learn the appropriate social hierarchy around here which places *me* at the top of the food chain.
Anyway, Trump's an idiot who improvised all this sabre rattling. Sec of State and Sec of Defense were not informed prior to the "fire and fury" speech.
After watching the news tonight I wish someone would give our president that he has his Teddy Roosevelt quote bass ackwards,
the actual quote is
"Speak softly and carry a big stick"
not Trumps misinterpretation
"Boast loudly and show them you have a little dick"
43 comments
Latest
Well, not the first time that fool in N. Korea has threatened nuclear Armageddon. The new variable is that we have an equally stupid fool here who's threatening "fire and fury" against N. Korea. Does Trump really mean it? Does he have the backing of the Pentagon? Or is Trump just talking out of his ass? I'm betting on the latter. There probably is no realistic way to launch a preemptive attack.
We have two fools on the world stage, now.
Yup.
If he does do something, many thousands might die in SouthKorea because the US can't stop all that artillery in a strike. Plus NK has subs with missiles.
I'm not sure why anyone is surprised in two hot heads talking tough words. Maybe someone thinks Trumps first strike might be nuclear. That might be effective but it might kill most of North Korea and anger a lot of other countries. I guess if North Korea strikes Guam, Trump might do it.
I think the stock market was looking for an excuse to sell. He only thing new here is whether or not Notth Korea thinks trump is full of hot air. I always thought he might nuke North Korea and end the threat they pose. Get them to fire at us first. Technically we are already at war. I would prefer giving peace a bit more chance and letting calmer voices prevail until next month at a minimum.
Trump hurt my stock positions. Sell off hit right after his words were played on tv. I doubt he cares if he is hurting Americans retirement account etc. Makes me wonder if a birdie told him his. Business was short. He could really make a killing by going to war. Completely unethical of course.
If Trump plans on nuking North Korea, he will likely want them to make the first strike so we can blame them when the world condemns the US for wiping out North Korea and the millions that used to live there. If North Korea's subs have nukes, that could be bad because lone subs might fire at anything in range. Hopefully the US is tracking every one of them ready to take them all out.
Who knows, Trump might be talking about using some super advanced top secret alien weapons we might have that could obliterate North Korea without nuclear radiation that work better than nudes. You know we have to have some good super weapons that haven't been shown to the world. Two hot heads in charge. What could go wrong? Right now I think Trump is more talk than action.
Stephen said to the 14% Everything will be ok. I thought I would make several people here feel better.
Now I might go stock up on water and food and buy defense stocks and survival company stock. Just kidding. Already got pizza in the refrigerator.
I know you enjoy criticizing Trump for anything you can, even if he were to put on his left shoe before his right.
Would it be better to allow them to threaten us and lead them to believe that there would be no repercussions if the follow through? Maybe we should even apologize for our way of life that for some reason offends them so.
Oh wait, that was our policy under the previous administration.
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/03/trump-as…
Well, Donald, in this case we would certainly wipe out S. Korea and Japan and a few other countries. But thanks for asking. A president with the nuclear codes really should be inquisitive.
MSNBC's Scarborough who vehemently hates Trump and works for a network that has had a jihad against Trump since he announced his intention to run for President and has never eased off on him throughout the primaries, the election, and his presidency cited an "unnamed" source that "claimed".
Yup you have to believe that has to be 100% accurate just like everything else NBC and it's affiliates, puts out. LOL
Just more of the same zero substance reactionary leftist agenda that you are known to post and have been continuously called on by several people here but you keep plugging away. YAWN
Oh wait, that was our policy under the previous administration."
Flagooner, don't interject facts here as that confuses the hateful agenda pushers.
For 8 years, Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran knew they could literally get away with murder without a response. Look where that got us.
There's something wrong with anyone that contributes to or refuses to acknowledge that fact and they're not doing the USA any favors, they just embolden our enemies.
Everything you say has to be true. Lol
Getting increasingly hard to see how the N Korean problem goes away with a military conflict.
But here, President Trump seems to be channeling his inner "Eisenhower" or his inner "Reagan." Not I'm not convinced that he's not copying them a little wrong, like he's missing some subtleties and nuances there.
When I think of a positive "Reagan" response that uses overwhelming power, I think of the SR-71 "Blackbird" flight over Libya to piss off Prime Minister Gaddafi. "Traveling at 1.6 miles per second, outrunning missiles, in and out -fast!" Using Stuxnet against Iran, is also in the same vein.
The United States is best when it uses overwhelming technical superiority to thumb back -- not Nucs. Nucs are not an appropriate response here.
(1) You believe that Government lending to the poor caused the last financial crisis
(2) You believe that the Government had no role in rescuing us from financial ruin after the last financial crisis.
(3) You believe that we should eliminate all of the previous regulations on our banking system.
I've heard all of this on TUSCL from multiple posters.
I will say that I feel optimistic about the direction of the country. There seems to be enough checks and balances to keep a nutcase like Trump from ruining the country. And I think enough moderate Republicans will start throwing him under the bus.
Though South Park philosophy does still apply. There are no stupid questions, only stupid people.
Libertarians believe in limited government, not no government. We believe in reasonable regulations, not the elimination of regulations. We believe that when government over reaches ( like mandating that banks give mortgages to unqualified borrowers ), there are often unintended ( but predictable ) consequences.
However, if you believe that the financial crisis was caused by government lending to unqualified borrowers, then you are either incapable of understanding the facts or unwilling to look into the facts. That's not a straw man argument; it's the kind of nutty Libertarian views you see on TUSCL if you're here long enough.
This is a thread hijack -- so back to talking about nuclear Armageddon.
The first thing that would happen would be a tremendous build-up of forces, armor and naval assets in that area, most likely taking resources from many other strategic and dangerous places thousands of miles away. Next the Russians or the Iranians emboldened by the lack of attention would start to create more mischief than they have been. Once the first shots start flying don't be surprised if Israel feels the need to preemptively strike Iran, or Pakistan to launch an attack on India, or the Russians to try to march into some of the former Soviet States.
Any thinking person knows this will be a disaster, millions will die and become homeless and the world will blame and rightfully so, the people who didn't do their job, this needs to be avoided. The president needs to stop his bluster and start acting in the best interest of the American people. This thin skinned bully needs to start picking and choosing his battles based on what is good for this country not his own personal self interest.
Sorry @OSU he is being criticized very fairly whether you believe it or not. If the man would start to try to govern, instead of thinking he is the ruler, many of the attacks would stop and he might just get credit for some real accomplishments instead of crowd size arguments or tweeting, he needs to get to work and stop fucking around.
Then, financial institutions exploded the situation by lying about the mortgages and selling them off to unsuspecting and unsophisticated buyers.
Government regulators were oblivious to this until it was too late.
There is plenty of blame to go around but it started with government good intentions ( and cluelessness).
Actually it was Truman, a democrat, that said, "If they do not now accept our terms they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth..."
This was after we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima.
Trump has made it clear that, if the Nork's use a nuke against us, their country will be leveled. Even a nut like Kim understands that.
Trump may have used more colorful language than other Presidents, but this is the policy we've had since 1947.
And just as non-response emboldens our enemies, so would a thermonuclear response emboldens so others to action (Israel versus its enemies, Iran, Pakistan versus India, Russian versus former Soviet Republics, etc).
But regardless, whatever response needs to be appropriate and in Americans best interests. Though I do think he smug conservatives and smug libertarians here in Tuscl have a point RE: lack of response with the prior (and other) administrations.
Fortunately, with all its insane logic, MAD works and has allowed many nations to mature enough to realize nuclear war is unwinnable for all sides but we must maintain the threat of retaliation in order deter maniacal despots.
The administration has managed to get China to back the latest sanctions. If they follow through North Korea no longer has a big ally on its northern border and the NK maniac may have a problem. He hardly feeds the people of North Korea now so with the new sanctions he will either; have to back off, shift focus to agriculture or start a shooting war he must know he will lose.
If the previous administration had not given in to NK's chief ally (Iran) or had not been so long on talk and unsupported threats, just like earlier administrations, he might have not gotten so bold.
When will politicians stop forgetting that if you are perceived as weak you cannot negotiate with strong arm dictators. Currently peace is achieved through strength.
The strength of the USA has kept the peace in Europe and a good portion of the world allowing for the skirmishes that are staged to consume excess weapons stores.
I do know, he may be just crazy enough to launch! I wonder if he has syphilis brain from the hookers he did before his old man croaked?
---------------------
That's possible. Anyway, look at the bright side: following a nuclear war on Trump's twitter feed would be really cool! And millennials have lived long enough, anyway.
Even if there is no wind, a million North Korean Innocents will pay the price for that (or those) spoiled brat(s) stupidity.
Our only reasonable response would be to take out Kim's military infrastructure with our overwhelming air power and, hopefully, to shoot down his ballistic missiles.
Or, we could send in a special ops team to silence the little bastard for good. The best bet might be for ys to deliver a South Korean hit team.
--------
Sorry @Tx but you're not permitted to troll me. I'm always the troll-er not the troll-ee. You need to learn the appropriate social hierarchy around here which places *me* at the top of the food chain.
Anyway, Trump's an idiot who improvised all this sabre rattling. Sec of State and Sec of Defense were not informed prior to the "fire and fury" speech.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/…
the actual quote is
"Speak softly and carry a big stick"
not Trumps misinterpretation
"Boast loudly and show them you have a little dick"