Trump threatens North Korea with 'fire and fury'

[Bouncer]

Instead of the mindless US press that wants war almost as much as our chicken hawk politicians, read this article instead.

https://theintercept.com/2017/09/05/...eporting-that/



Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

This article is apologetic for North Korean actions.

If the United States was firing off ICBMs saying "this gift package is for you", your argument would be completely different. You would not be defending the US and yes that is what you are doing for North Korea.. defending insane and provocative actions.

You don't fire bullets directly over someone's head and then say "but I'm willing to talk".. their actions speak far louder than words.

[Scrumhalf]

But our war games every year at their border isn't provocative at all, right?

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Bouncer]

So you defend north korea for being provacative but you denounce the US for it.

[Scrumhalf]

So you defend north korea for being provacative but you denounce the US for it.

I'm not defending anyone. I'm just pointing the hypocrisy in our stance. It's not like NK seeking nuclear deterrence is illogical.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[Bouncer]

I'm not defending anyone. I'm just pointing the hypocrisy in our stance. It's not like NK seeking nuclear deterrence is illogical.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

They fired a missile directly over Japan. They are now saying they have a "gift for the US". Why are you not admitting that this is more than just self defense? This is provocation. Your original argument (defense of North Korea in my eyes) was that North Korea was simply "defending itself". Recent actions by the North Koreans look more like offensive actions to me.

[Scrumhalf]

Bullshit. They didn't fire an ICBM. Come on.

Yes, the Japan shot was provocative but you want to go to war for that? War is a bad idea here. This isn't Iraq, not that it was a good idea there either.

And I never said that the specific Japan shot was Korea defending itself. I said that everything NK is doing with their nuclear capability is giving out the message - don't try to attack us because we have real weapons to hurt you.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Chadd77]

Scrum, so when would it makes sense to bomb the shit out of their military bases in NK? Only if they fire and successfully hit us or another country? Or even then do we try and have peace talks with them?

[Scrumhalf]

There is no way to hit all their bases without them raining missles on Seoul. That's the problem. There is no easy military solution. If it were possible to nullify the threat by selectively bombing some bases, I think it would have been done by now.

[Chadd77]

So it wouldn't ever make sense to bomb them? Even if they attacked us?

[Scrumhalf]

If they attack first, of course. It is still not easy because there are millions of civilians in the way. It will be a bloodbath. But I don't think they will. They will know that if they attack first, then that's the end of their regime. They are bluffing. They are using their nuclear capability to make sure the US doesn't doa preemptive strike.

Which is why the goal should be to de-escalate, not make things worse by having a dick measuring contest with a madman. The only reason he will strike first if he thinks he is backed into a corner so much that he has nothing to lose.

[chuckz28]

Trump is just projecting strength because he feels Obama was weak on NK by saying that using the military is not an option. He knows it's a bad option or else he would have used it already.

He will not attack NK unless they attack first. The main reason for this is China. China has already stated that if NK attacks the US they will remain neutral, but if the US strikes FIRST they will defend NK. There won't be any war here as long as China maintains that position. It would wreck the global economy and Trump does not want that.

This whole thing makes it easier to have a much stronger international consensus on diplomatic action. Before all this the only support the US had was SK and a reluctant Japan, and today Japan is strong against them, AUS shows their support and even Putin is moving toward South Korea's camp against the actions of NK.

[Scrumhalf]

This whole thing makes it easier to have a much stronger international consensus on diplomatic action. Before all this the only support the US had was SK and a reluctant Japan, and today Japan is strong against them, AUS shows their support and even Putin is moving toward South Korea's camp against the actions of NK.

And what does our guy do? Threaten SK by saying he will pull out of economic agreements with them. Nice going, genius! :retard:

[chuckz28]

And what does our guy do? Threaten SK by saying he will pull out of economic agreements with them. Nice going, genius! :retard:

Lol yeah just a terrible play there.

[Scrumhalf]

Screw the ICBMs. That's not the biggest problem here.

The people who have the most to lose here are the South Koreans. Set aside the nuclear bombs and missles - NK has hundreds of CONVENTIONAL missles pointed at Seoul. If war breaks out, you've got 10 million people in metro Seoul in imminent danger.

So, what we need to do is to listen to the South Koreans. This is not freaking Call of Duty. And the South Koreans have been clear - they want talks. But we want another war, screw what the South Koreans think or want! That's the problem I have with our approach.

[Bouncer]

Putin says sanctions, pressure alone won't resolve North Korea crisis | Reuters

China's Xi tells Trump that North Korea nuclear issue must be solved via talks | Reuters