August 8, 2017

"North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen."

"He has been very threatening beyond a normal state and as I said they will be met with fire and fury and frankly power the likes of which this world has never seen before."

That's Donald Trump's threat. It counters this from North Korea: "Packs of wolves are coming in attack to strangle a nation. They should be mindful that the D.P.R.K.’s strategic steps accompanied by physical action will be taken mercilessly with the mobilization of all its national strength."

The NYT reports.

346 comments:

1 – 200 of 346   Newer›   Newest»
Michael K said...

Just shoot down the next Nork missile test. The risk is that our anti-missile system fails but better to know now.

Russia and China can probably overwhelm the system with volume but I doubt the Norks can.

rhhardin said...

Shock and awe. Also MOABs.

Bob Ellison said...

Trump is such a master at holding his cards close to his vest.

Sebastian said...

This better not be like that beautiful wall Mexico is gonna pay for.

Chuck said...

So "packs of wolves" is Kim Jong Un, and "fire and fury" is Donald Trump. I just wanna keep everybody's lines straight.

Like "Game of Thrones."

Achilles said...

Interesting.

If you want peace this is the only way you will actually get to that point. Everyone knows the US has the power. We have always just lacked the will to use it.

If we do this we need to make sure we only have to do it once. That means no holding back and no quarter.

antiphone said...

Not to worry, Fox and Friends is on it.

J. Farmer said...

Oy. Of course this kind of bluster will only serve to reinforce the North's already entrenched position. North Korea is already an exceptionally isolated country, perhaps the most isolated in the world. A nuclear weapon will not significantly change its geostrategic position, but it is willing to suffer materially a great deal in order to obtain one. And the reason is fairly simple: it wants leverage against outside military attack and regime change. Neither China nor the South wants to tackle the Northern headache. South Korea finds itself with a youthful population that has shown very little interest in engaging the north and is even more apathetic about the prospects of unification. The South pays lip service to unification but knows that any collapse of the regime to the North will flood the South (and China) with millions of poor, unskilled, under educated northerners.

Unknown said...

There are thousands of American troops and their dependents in South Korea and Japan. Maybe Trump should have the dependents evacuated before he gets into a saber rattling constest with Kim Jung Un.

eric said...

I think what we are seeing now is prelude to an attack on North Korea.

My guess. As we speak our military is gaming out attacks and responses. Bombs, not people in country. The bureaucrats are planning strongly worded responses. Even China will talk tough.

But after the bombs fall, and the loud chatter begins, that'll be the end of "war" with North Korea for awhile. We will do just enough damage to embarrass them. And show just how pathetic and weak they are.

Ann Althouse said...

Pack of wolves... strangle...

Terrible imagery. It betrays the inability of NK to carry out the threat. Wolves can strangle. They have paws. He should have said rip your throat out. The impotence would be laughable if it weren't for the real horror of nuclear war.

"Fire and fury" is like "shock and awe." The pairs of words are strong, but Trump seems to have wanted 3 things: fire and fury and power. So he had to say a second sentence, which seemed weak, especially with the "frankly" before "power." But the man has a way with words. A strange way. It shouldn't work, but somehow it does. It's as if what appears bad is actually what is good.

Clayton Hennesey said...

It's probably long overdue time to start breaking Iran's toys as well:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-iran-drones-idUSKBN1AO1SX

Ralph L said...

Shock and awe.
Otherwise Seoul is toast.
Korean doesn't seem to translate well, or they were sticking to a literal one.

J. Farmer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DanTheMan said...

>>Of course this kind of bluster will only serve to reinforce the North's already entrenched position.

So, enlighten us. What is the right response to these threats?

J. Farmer said...

@Clayton Hennesey:

It's probably long overdue time to start breaking Iran's toys as well:

Oh, of course, two countries that pose next to no threat to American strategic interests. Of course we should follow the astonishingly successful examples of Afghanistan/Iraq/Libya/Syria and throw billions of dollars and thousands of lives down the drain for nothing.

David Begley said...

Hillary NEVER would talk or tweet like that. Expect a major freak out by the media.

J. Farmer said...

@DanTheMan:

So, enlighten us. What is the right response to these threats?

To ignore them. And to understand that they are empty bluster meant much more for domestic consumption than anything else.

traditionalguy said...

This explains why Trump has put up with MacMaster's globalist political connections. He needs all military hands on decks for the conclusion of The Korean Police Action that was started by another no nonsense President named Truman.

rhhardin said...

Nobody's talking about nuclear war, except Japan, which has something of an aversion to it not shared by people in the US who celebrate US technology day on August 6.

MOABs do a nice enough job however. NK has done us the favor of having only military targets in the demilitarized zone.

Kevin said...

Perhaps it was not clear the era of strategic patience is over.

Trump needs to make sure Kim knows he's no longer dealing with Obama - for everyone's sake.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I think what we are seeing now is prelude to an attack on North Korea.

I think it is a strategy to force an internal coup of rational military or others who are in a position to remove Kim Jung Whoseit from power.

Surely not all of the military, political leaders or citizens are suicidal.

It might also be a way to goad China into a backdoor orchestration of the removal of Kim from leadership in Korea. I'm pretty positive that China does not want a nuclear war or any OTHER war on one of their own borders.

Howard said...

eric: Great points, we have a great chance to catch NKor with their pants down. I'm sure South Korea won't mind getting their hair mussed as long as Trump can be strong leader. I'd say no more than 10,000 to 20,000 killed, tops, depending on the breaks.

J. Farmer said...

@Howard:

I'm sure South Korea won't mind getting their hair mussed as long as Trump can be strong leader.

And precisely what from the Korean media or political class has led you to this conclusion?

Bay Area Guy said...

I'm more of a "Speak softly, carry a big stick" type of fellow.

However, it is probably nearly impossible to speak rationally to these barbaric communists of North Korea. So maybe saber rattling is all they respect.

It'd be nice if China and/or South Korea could exert some quiet leverage and/or diplomacy to get the Norks to STFU and behave. I do hope there isn't any escalation. But I'm not in any panic mode. The problem is not us, but North Korea. What to do about it and how, are the primary questions.



Rabel said...

I think "packs of wolves" refers to the nations of the UN Security Council, not the North Koreans.

Also, Trump said "normal statement" not "normal state."

Chuck said...

The problem in the North Korea-US conflict is that we're dealing with an unstable madman. A kind of a man-child, with an odd relationship with his leader-father. And even a brother whose death might haunt him. A personally weird figure, obsessed with things like watching American television and his own grandiose, theatrical imaginings about himself. No responsible international leader can trust what he says, because he might say anything, and it is so often a kind of a strange internal monologue.

We've got all of that; and, we also have to deal with Kim Jong Un.

Carter Wood said...

"Fire and fury?" Much more convincing when Tom Wait sang it in "Down in the Hole."

Lucien said...

This is the type of adventure that Trump was supposed to keep us out of. The US has no significant national interest at stake. South Korea, which has the most to lose, does not seem to want us to do anything.

We should ignore North Korea. We should also fully accept the fact that China is the grown-up in that corner of the world, & it is the responsibility of the Chinese, if anyone, to rein in the North Korean regime.

J. Farmer said...

@Chuck:

The problem in the North Korea-US conflict is that we're dealing with an unstable madman.

And what is your source for this conclusion? If anything, Kim Jung Un is coldly calculating and (like his father and grandfather) has shown a ruthless commitment to self-preservation. Even if we granted Kim's most potentially ambitious desire--the desire to unify the entire peninsula under his rule--he has no hope of that given US security commitments to the South as well as the South's huge advantages in money and technology.

J. Farmer said...

@Lucien:

This is the type of adventure that Trump was supposed to keep us out of. The US has no significant national interest at stake. South Korea, which has the most to lose, does not seem to want us to do anything.

We should ignore North Korea. We should also fully accept the fact that China is the grown-up in that corner of the world, & it is the responsibility of the Chinese, if anyone, to rein in the North Korean regime.


Agree completely with this sentiment.

sunsong said...

If Trump does anything that causes loss of life in S. Korea...it will not be forgiven...nor should it!

Clayton Hennesey said...

Oh, of course, two countries that pose next to no threat to American strategic interests. Of course we should follow the astonishingly successful examples of Afghanistan/Iraq/Libya/Syria and throw billions of dollars and thousands of lives down the drain for nothing.

It doesn't really take billions of dollars and thousands of lives down the drain to shoot down a drone menacing one's aircraft in international waters. Nor to sink a patrol boat, for that matter.

When one finally punches out a passive-aggressive bully, the public hue and cry, pearl-clutching, and pants-wetting of the sort you demonstrate here is certain and overwhelming, but behind the scenes everyone is pumping their fist and cheering, "Yes! Finally!"

Well, except Iran and North Korea.

Hagar said...

Again; the Japanese and U.S. navies have fished the remains of the NK missiles out of the ocean and say that the "critical components," presumable meaning high tech, bore Made in China logos, i.e., it is a Chinese missile testing program.

Most likely DBQ has it about right.

As for "speak softly and carry a big stick," Teddy Roosevelt was about the most belligerent talking president we ever had, but also presided over perhaps the most peaceful presidency.
Though he did indeed carry a "big stick" and did not mind showing it off, as when he sent "the Great White Fleet" around the world.

Unknown said...

"We should ignore North Korea. We should also fully accept the fact that China is the grown-up in that corner of the world, & it is the responsibility of the Chinese, if anyone, to rein in the North Korean regime."

Absolutely.

Robert Cook said...

"Oh, of course, two countries that pose next to no threat to American strategic interests. Of course we should follow the astonishingly successful examples of Afghanistan/Iraq/Libya/Syria and throw billions of dollars and thousands of lives down the drain for nothing."

That's America's strategy: when we're in the middle of several bloody and bankrupting clusterfucks we've started for no reason and can't get out of...start more!

J. Farmer said...

When one finally punches out a passive-aggressive bully, the public hue and cry, pearl-clutching, and pants-wetting of the sort you demonstrate here is certain and overwhelming, but behind the scenes everyone is pumping their fist and cheering, "Yes! Finally!"

Just like when we punched out the Taliban and Hussein and Qadaffi and tried to Assad. Of course, after the exciting adolescent bravado of "yes! finally!" comes the somber, adult question of "what now?"

Robert Cook said...

"@Howard:

'I'm sure South Korea won't mind getting their hair mussed as long as Trump can be strong leader.'

"And precisely what from the Korean media or political class has led you to this conclusion?"


I think he's making an ironic allusion to DR. STRANGELOVE.

Robert Cook said...

"When one finally punches out a passive-aggressive bully...."

The preeminent bully in the world today is America.

Snark said...

Wow. All these threats. A couple of chubby master baiters for sure.

FullMoon said...

Yeah, I am noticing news every day how NK did this or that. Kinda priming majority to agree with takin' em' out.
Anticipating stories of torture chambers and how Kim abuses babies to get us more riled up.

Unknown said...

"Wow. All these threats. A couple of chubby master baiters for sure."

Two spoiled man babies playing with human lives..

antiphone said...

When one finally punches out a passive-aggressive bully, the public hue and cry, pearl-clutching, and pants-wetting of the sort you demonstrate here is certain and overwhelming, but behind the scenes everyone is pumping their fist and cheering, "Yes! Finally!"

It's like the Iraq war never happened.

Robert Cook said...

"Just like when we punched out the Taliban and Hussein and Qadaffi and tried to Assad. Of course, after the exciting adolescent bravado of "yes! finally!" comes the somber, adult question of 'what now?'"

Why ask, J. Farmer? These are people raised on professional wrestling and tales of America's perpetually unerring wisdom and righteousness.

FullMoon said...


Blogger Robert Cook said...

"When one finally punches out a passive-aggressive bully...."

The preeminent bully in the world today is America.

8/8/17, 4:35 PM


And yet, like an abused lover, you refuse to leave.

Clayton Hennesey said...

Just like when we punched out the Taliban and Hussein and Qadaffi and tried to Assad. Of course, after the exciting adolescent bravado of "yes! finally!" comes the somber, adult question of "what now?"

Not exactly. A few 20mm rounds from the Hornet in question would have done it.

Who, precisely, do you expect to believe the babbling, reality-free hysteria you've been advancing here?

Clayton Hennesey said...

J. Farmer, do you think the commenters here are too stupid to recognize the straw man arguments you've been throwing up?

antiphone said...

Who, precisely, do you expect to believe the babbling, reality-free hysteria you've been advancing here?

No common sense will be tolerated in Trumptopia.

Unknown said...

Gen. Vincent Brooks, who commands US troops in South Korea, thinks that tensions are high between the North and South, as the only thing keeping both sides from fighting is “self-restraint.” In other words, there’s nothing really keeping the two countries from warring except a massive provocation or miscalculation.

Fire and fury, don't forget power! So manly, so sexy to some it seems, so stupid.

Robert Cook said...

"J. Farmer, do you think the commenters here are too stupid to recognize the straw man arguments you've been throwing up?"

What straw man arguments has J. Farmer put forth? He's asking reasonable questions to unreasonable calls for annihilating North Korea, pointing out our lack of success in our military aggression elsewhere.

antiphone said...

...the man has a way with words. A strange way. It shouldn't work, but somehow it does. It's as if what appears bad is actually what is good.

Yeah, and his eyes are dreamy.

Drago said...

Unknown: "Two spoiled man babies playing with human lives.."

“Turns out I’m really good at killing people,” Obama said quietly, “Didn’t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.”

Ray said...

Very Jacksonian response by Trump, not a good idea to issue threats to a Jacksonian President. And the US historically hates threats... And if nobody believes in the US threats, it takes away the military option in negotiating.

Current leader of NK seems very cold blooded. He was not the oldest, but is now in power because he was the most ruthless.

6 Options for dealing with NK:
http://observer.com/2017/07/donald-trump-north-korea-options/

If there was a new Korean War, this article estimated a million dead if it did not go Nuclear. Plus NK has biological and chemical weapons.
http://www.newsweek.com/2017/05/05/what-war-north-korea-looks-588861.html

J. Farmer said...

@Clayton Hennesey:

J. Farmer, do you think the commenters here are too stupid to recognize the straw man arguments you've been throwing up?

Tell me which of my arguments have been straw men, and I'll be happy to respond.

Earnest Prole said...

Like Obama's red line but with nukes.

Clayton Hennesey said...

Tell me which of my arguments have been straw men, and I'll be happy to respond.

All of your responses to me have been patently dishonest straw man arguments.

J. Farmer said...

All of your responses to me have been patently dishonest straw man arguments.

Okay. So pick one and tell me why it's a straw man...

walter said...

Dunno Farmer. Pointing out others reluctance to engage N. Korea should LESSEN their concern over invasion/regime change. Instead, he courts it.

Snark said...


"Packs of wolves are coming in attack to strangle a nation" reminds me of bad translations like "baked dirty and crap legs", or as appears on an app on my phone, "folded stranger messages". Trump should have countered with "America's thorax bends goat fury near midnight dumpling" and just let them mull over that.

J. Farmer said...

@walter:

Dunno Farmer. Pointing out others reluctance to engage N. Korea should LESSEN their concern over invasion/regime change. Instead, he courts it.

I am not exactly sure what "others reluctance to engage N. Korea," you are referring to, but if it's China and South Korea, the reason should be fairly obvious. And it is precisely because invasion/regime change would be a nightmare for them. Similarly, if Mexico suffered some violent implosion, and millions of people started pouring across our southern border, we would be very concerned with that.

J. Farmer said...

p.s. "...we would be very concerned with that." On second thought, I probably should have written "should be very concerned with that."

Clayton Hennesey said...

Okay. So pick one and tell me why it's a straw man...

Now we understand your real motive: you're just trolling for attention.

But the answer is easy: I said break Iran's and North Korea's toys (shoot down/sink Iran's tauntingly aggressive drones and patrol boats threatening U. S. assets in international waters; shoot down N. Korea's missiles explicitly designed, according to the declarations of the N. Korean government, to inflict first nuclear strikes on the U. S. mainland).

You countered against my spending billions of dollars and thousands of lives, a classic straw man response.

There's nothing about your virtue-signalling non-interventionism that's even honest, J. Farmer.

Now fuck off and go hump someone else's leg.

Kevin said...

If Trump does anything that causes loss of life in S. Korea...it will not be forgiven...nor should it!

You mean like Obama in Libya? Or Syria? Or Yemen? Or do lost lives in those countries not count for much?

Here's a hint: if you want to start drawing moral lines over which Trump should indisputably not cross or be proven the historical monster he's made out to be, make sure the last guy wasn't jump-roping over them for the last eight years.

Fabi said...

"...an unstable madman."

That's a new low, Chuck -- take a bow!

J. Farmer said...

@Clayton Hennessey:

Now we understand your real motive: you're just trolling for attention.

Yes, precisely, and thank you so much for indulging me.

I said break Iran's and North Korea's toys (shoot down/sink Iran's tauntingly aggressive drones and patrol boats threatening U. S. assets in international waters; shoot down N. Korea's missiles explicitly designed, according to the declarations of the N. Korean government, to inflict first nuclear strikes on the U. S. mainland).

Well, you just added that parenthetical explanation. As you know, your first response was "It's probably long overdue time to start breaking Iran's toys as well," and that was your sole statement on a pose whose heading is "North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen."

You countered against my spending billions of dollars and thousands of lives, a classic straw man response.

Now you see, I tend to think that advocating military response against foreign countries as a costless endeavor is much closer to a straw man than what I'm talking about, which is what the US consistently done for nearly two decades now. That is, thrown money and lives away to get pretty much nothing of strategic value in return. And in many cases, making our strategic position worse off than before we began.

Now fuck off and go hump someone else's leg.

Weren't you just complaining about trolling moments ago?

Kevin said...

The US has no significant national interest at stake.

Except for subjecting the country's citizens to sleep under the threat of nuclear blackmail. Once Kim started launching ICBMs that can land on US soil, he made it our problem.

tcrosse said...

If Trump gives an order, will the Generals obey ?

Jim at said...

Notice our resident leftists blaming America for the sins of the Norks.

But don't you DARE question their patriotism.

harrogate said...

What a deadly and thoughtless act it would be, for us to militarily confront NoKo.

Which means we'll prolly do it. But no worries.
Not too long after it's all kinds of fucked up with at least hundreds of thousands dead, the architects will still get to be on television in expensive suits yammering on as "foreign policy experts."

J. Farmer said...

@Kevin:

If by "threat of nuclear blackmail" you mean "defense against invasion/attack by a foreign power," then you are absolutely right, and that's precisely what nuclear weapons are designed for, whether in the hands of the Russians the Chinese the Pakistanis the Indians or the Israelis.

Howard said...

Robert Cook wins a snickers bar. My whole post was gleeped from my favorite scene from Strangelove when Bucky tries to convince Merkin Muffly to go all-in behind General Ripper (based on an unofficial study which we undertook of this eventuality)

Buck Goes Ballistic

antiphone said...

Now fuck off and go hump someone else's leg.

What an asshole.

Kevin said...

If Trump gives an order, will the Generals obey ?

The Generals are already working out the options to present to the President. None of them want to be the first to lose a US city.

You don't have to trust Trump. You have to trust Mattis, McMaster, and Kelly. The serious conversations have already been had with our allies and the world community. You don't get 15-0 in the Security Council by bluffing Russia and China.

harrogate said...

Trump and Mattis and Kelly might want it, but the American people might be a little harder to fool into war enthusiasm, this time around.

J. Farmer said...

@Kevin:

None of them want to be the first to lose a US city.

And what exactly is the evidence that the North Korean regime is suicidal? If they launched an attack on a US city, they would be utterly obliterated by the counterattack. What exactly would that have gotten them?

You don't get 15-0 in the Security Council by bluffing Russia and China.

Sanctions and a military attack are very different animals. If you have evidence that the South Koreans (let alone the Chinese and the Russians) are on board with an American attack on North Korea, please share that with us.

Howard said...

Jim at thinks patriotism is going all in behind a cuntly bombastic narcissist... like he supported Hillary on Benghazi too, because you know, patriotism.

Howard said...

I'm sure Mattis and Kelly are talking the vile piece of shit down off the corner of the ledge he is trying to paint us into.

J. Farmer said...

@Howard:

Jim at thinks patriotism is going all in behind a cuntly bombastic narcissist... like he supported Hillary on Benghazi too, because you know, patriotism.

Sadly, for many people, "patriotism" seems to only mean "willingness to attack other countries." Apparently, the desire to not see your fellow countrymen killed and your taxpayer money flushed down the drain on pointless military adventurism is unpatriotic.

Unknown said...

"Now fuck off and go hump someone else's leg."

"What an asshole."

He sounds a little like Stephen Miller.

Howard said...

The Althouse chickenhawks have abandoned Teddy Roosevelt's motto of speaking softly. Opiods will do that... Pennsylvania Dutch Courage?

harrogate said...


"Sadly, for many people, 'patriotism' seems to only mean 'willingness to attack other countries.' Apparently, the desire to not see your fellow countrymen killed and your taxpayer money flushed down the drain on pointless military adventurism is unpatriotic."


A thousand times this. and that warped view of patriotism benefits profiteers Bigly, so it's a sickness that ain't going anywhere anytime soon.

tcrosse said...

And what exactly is the evidence that the North Korean regime is suicidal? If they launched an attack on a US city, they would be utterly obliterated by the counterattack. What exactly would that have gotten them?

We relied on Mutually Assured Destruction to get us through the Cold War. Does the same doctrine not apply in this case ?

Howard said...

J. Farmer: it's really about their own feelings of inadequacy with all the womyn and peoples of colour getting all the good jobs they are too lazy or too stupid to do.

Steve Uhr said...

Fire and Fury "like the world has never seen." I.e., nuclear weapons or worse. So our president is saying that if NK merely threatens the US, we will nuke them. Of course he doesn't mean it and we can all take comfort in the fact that every other thing that comes out of his mouth is a lie -- giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Unknown said...

"Sadly, for many people, 'patriotism' seems to only mean 'willingness to attack other countries.' Apparently, the desire to not see your fellow countrymen killed and your taxpayer money flushed down the drain on pointless military adventurism is unpatriotic."

How patriotic it is to see our troops and their dependents in South Korea incinerated, eh? It must make them feel like singing that hideous song by that Greenwood guy.

The Cracker Emcee Activist said...

"To ignore them. And to understand that they are empty bluster meant much more for domestic consumption than anything else."

Ah, so no harm done, yes?

harrogate said...

Unknown, don't forget the yellow ribbons and all the keyboard warrior antics. Greenwood ain't the only way to show your patriotism.

Howard said...

tcrosse: need to thank you for the recommendation for The Thick of it. It's very similar to The Office (brit version), but much better.

WRT MAD, I agree, yes. While I think Trump is an impotent asshole on Viagra in a Jersey cathouse, this latest bombast doesn't worry me because everyone knows he is lying.

J. Farmer said...

The Cracker Emcee Activist:

Ah, so no harm done, yes?

Depends on your perspective. I think the North Korean one has been very damaging for their cause, and I think that's largely because many of the populace still cling ideologically to Leninist view of the world, and the country is run by a cult of personality. But of course it is a PoliSci cliche to point out that autocratic rulers have to routinely point out the terrible dangers that await their people from a hostile world. This in turn is used to justify their police state policies. The Castro family has been reading from this playbook for over half a century.

Unknown said...

Harrogate, I recall all the wrapping in the flag during the invasion of Iraq. Anyone who dared protest or disagree was quickly called unpatriotic. The bloodlust was vulgar, just as it is now.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Oh, of course, two countries [Iran and North Korea] that pose next to no threat to American strategic interests.

Well, I don't know about the rest of you people, but....I'm fairly strategically interested in not being blown up by a nuclear bomb, suitcase bomb, ballistic missile or any other kind of bomb. If that requires that we be proactive, then, so be it.

The Cracker Emcee Activist said...

Fascinating that neither the Left not the Right here thinks this is calculated when, historically, it's always calculated. At least at this stage. Remember when Reagan was hell-bent on plunging the Earth into Armageddon? Good times.

J. Farmer said...

@Unknown:

How patriotic it is to see our troops and their dependents in South Korea incinerated, eh?

Well, I can think of one real quick remedy that would not only protect those troops and their dependents but save the US some money: remove them from South Korea. Let the South Koreans, the Japanese, and the Chinese work out how to contain the North.

J. Farmer said...

@Dust Bunny Queen:

Well, I don't know about the rest of you people, but....I'm fairly strategically interested in not being blown up by a nuclear bomb, suitcase bomb, ballistic missile or any other kind of bomb. If that requires that we be proactive, then, so be it.

And you are already protected from that. To a very great degree. Again, there is no evidence that North Koreans are suicidal. What would they gain from launching an attack on the US that would certainly end in their own obliteration?

Snark said...

"Yeah, and his eyes are dreamy."

I LOLd. It's pretty crazy, but what are going to do but LOL.

EDH said...

As I've said repeatedly...

When it comes to North Korea, I would invoke the Frank Pentangeli Doctrine.

Kevin said...

If by "threat of nuclear blackmail" you mean "defense against invasion/attack by a foreign power," then you are absolutely right, and that's precisely what nuclear weapons are designed for, whether in the hands of the Russians the Chinese the Pakistanis the Indians or the Israelis.

Oh please, stop with the lecturing. We all grew up knowing exactly what nuclear weapons are for. Neither the Russians, the Chinese, the Pakistanis, the Indians, nor the Israelis, nor anyone else has threatened a nuclear first strike on the United States.

McMaster, Mattis and Kelly would resign before they'd consider attacking any of these countries today. And yet they're avidly working up plans for North Korea. I wonder why?

It's certainly not because Kim lacks a credible deterrent. Kim can already destroy Seoul if attacked. He doesn't need nuclear weapons to dissuade attackers.

For the last 65 years we've had no business with North Korea other than making sure they didn't launch an unprovoked attack South Korea FOR THE SECOND TIME. For 65 years we let Kim after Kim run their little country into the ground while we stood and watched, occasionally sending them food so their people wouldn't starve. For 65 years we were clear not only with North Korea, but with China, that any incursion into the north would start a war with the Chinese, and thus would be not worth considering. For 65 years, there was zero threat of any foreign power entering North Korea.

Could have been the same for the next 65 years, and the next, and the next. I wonder what changed.

Howard said...

Nice example Cracker, since Reagan's blunders (turn tail after Beiruit 1983, arms to Iran for hostages and giving Afghanistan to the ISI-backed Taliban) in the middle east led directly to 9/11 and the endless war on terror.

Unknown said...

"Again, there is no evidence that North Koreans are suicidal. What would they gain from launching an attack on the US that would certainly end in their own obliteration."

Well, we can test that theory by encouraging our own Dear Leader to keep running his mouth.

Unknown said...

"Fascinating that neither the Left not the Right here thinks this is calculated when, historically, it's always calculated. At least at this stage. Remember when Reagan was hell-bent on plunging the Earth into Armageddon? Good times."

"Calculated"? Oh please. That's about the dumbest thing you've ever said here.

The Cracker Emcee Activist said...

"Nice example Cracker, since Reagan's blunders (turn tail after Beiruit 1983, arms to Iran for hostages and giving Afghanistan to the ISI-backed Taliban) in the middle east led directly to 9/11 and the endless war on terror"

And, oh!, that nuclear conflagration!

The Cracker Emcee Activist said...


""Calculated"? Oh please."

Right, Trump is inexplicably a uniquely loose-cannon in the history of the world. And you wonder why you're not taken seriously...

Unknown said...

"And, oh!, that nuclear conflagration!"

I dare you to go visit South Korea, big mouth.

J. Farmer said...

@Kevin:

Neither the Russians, the Chinese, the Pakistanis, the Indians, nor the Israelis, nor anyone else has threatened a nuclear first strike on the United States.

The Russians is certainly arguable. See Khrushchev, for example.

He doesn't need nuclear weapons to dissuade attackers.

Then what does he need them for? What does he gain by having them that he didn't have before? And what will that get his regime?

Alex said...

Trump will kill us all. Impeach the orange chimp.

The Cracker Emcee Activist said...

This isn't remotely 3-D chess. It's Adversarial Diplomacy 101.

J. Farmer said...

The Cracker Emcee Activist:

This isn't remotely 3-D chess. It's Adversarial Diplomacy 101.

And when the North Koreans ignore the threat and keep on testing, then what?

mockturtle said...

Ever been around some irritating little gnats? No matter what you do they keep coming back to harass and annoy. I'm not referring to NorK but to Unknown....

Unknown said...

Mockturtle....bite me.

Howard said...

Ca Ca Ca Cat Fight

The Cracker Emcee Activist said...

"And when the North Koreans ignore the threat and keep on testing, then what?"

Not seeing where Trump makes a specific "red line" threat if the North Koreans continue to test.

Unknown said...

"Ca Ca Ca Cat Fight"

She's a damn turtle for pity sake.


Michael K said...

Of course this kind of bluster will only serve to reinforce the North's already entrenched position.

No, Obama and Hillary did that with Gaddafi.

J. Farmer said...

@Michael K:

No, Obama and Hillary did that with Gaddafi.

This was certainly one of the shockwaves from the godawful idiotic endeavor. It sent a terrible message that disarmament meant defenselessness. Nonetheless, the pursuit of nuclear weapons capability has been a decades-long endeavor for the North, and it is likely we would be at this same position with our without the Libya blunder.

Unknown said...

"Isolating the North Koreans has not halted their pursuit of nuclear weapons. And President Trump is not helping the situation with his bombastic comments, The United States must quickly engage North Korea in a high-level dialogue without any preconditions. In my view, diplomacy is the only sound path forward."
Diane Feinstein.

Thank goodness for the adults in DC. Compare and contrast her comment with Trump's.

J. Farmer said...

The Cracker Emcee Activist:

"Not seeing where Trump makes a specific "red line" threat if the North Koreans continue to test.

Trump's words: "North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States..."

The North Koreans responded by threatening to attack Guam.

So again, now what?

AReasonableMan said...

Trump and Kim are roughly equally equally matched in the bullshit and blather categories. Should be the bullshitter's cage match for the ages.

The Cracker Emcee Activist said...

""Isolating the North Koreans has not halted their pursuit of nuclear weapons. And President Trump is not helping the situation with his bombastic comments, The United States must quickly engage North Korea in a high-level dialogue without any preconditions. In my view, diplomacy is the only sound path forward."
Diane Feinstein."

Where's Madeline Albright now that we need her?

walter said...

J. Farmer said...
@walter:Dunno Farmer. Pointing out others reluctance to engage N. Korea should LESSEN their concern over invasion/regime change. Instead, he courts it.

I am not exactly sure what "others reluctance to engage N. Korea," you are referring to, but if it's China and South Korea, the reason should be fairly obvious.
--
Yup. My read of your previous seemed to suggest both no real threat while threat drives them to nukes.

Unknown said...

"The North Koreans responded by threatening to attack Guam."


163,000 souls on Guam. Not mentioning American troops and their dependents.

Dr Weevil said...

When J. Farmer wrote (5:48pm) that all we have to do to is remove our troops from South Korea, I thought "How is that going to solve the problem? Kim's threatening to nuke Guam! Do we have to get our troops out of Guam, and the West Coast, and any other place his nukes can reach?"

Now (6:16pm) he mentions the threat to Guam as if it strengthened his own do-nothing position, instead of making it obviously ridiculous.

Michael K said...

DBQ, you, unlike the lefties who showed up suddenly, have it just about right.

It might also be a way to goad China into a backdoor orchestration of the removal of Kim from leadership in Korea. I'm pretty positive that China does not want a nuclear war or any OTHER war on one of their own borders.

This is aimed at China. The Chinese economy has slowed and they are having trouble as all command economies do once their low wage advantage expires. India and Vietnam (of all places) are making stuff and shipping it here for less money. China is more susceptible to trade restrictions than it has been before.

A clerk counts stacks of Chinese yuan at a bank in Beijing, China. China's falling FX reserves are a key challenge: StanChart
Tuesday, 7 Feb 2017 | 8:04 PM ET | 01:58
The supposed stability being portrayed in China's recent economic reports doesn't look so rosy in the scope of the big picture.

For example, less money appears to be fleeing the country than only a month or two ago — but looking back 12 months, the trend is still worrying.

China bought U.S. government bonds in December for the first time since May, the Treasury reported Wednesday. However, overall holdings fell by a record $188 billion last year, according to news service StreetAccount.


China is the key to NK. Trump knows this better then the left wing commenters.

My concern is that the generals around him probably resist his better sense. Especially with Afghanistan.



AReasonableMan said...

Can you think of a current world leader more similar to Trump than Kim Jong Un?

Michael K said...

Farmer, I'm not including you in the lefties but your issues are best responded to by reminding you how we got here.

Bill Clinton, Hillary and Obama, along with Bush, gave us this situation, not Trump.

The Cracker Emcee Activist said...

"Trump's words: "North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States..."

The North Koreans responded by threatening to attack Guam.

So again, now what?"

That would depend entirely how credible the government thinks the threat against Guam is. Again, Trump didn't specify any particular tit-for-tat. You're one of the smarter people on here. I'm surprised you think there's some sort of inflexible prescient plan.

rcocean said...

Trump is a grownup threatening a six year old. The little boy now knows he can't push Dad any farther.

Lydia said...

Just in time for the August 9th anniversary of the bombing of Nagasaki.

Howard said...

Doc Mike: we got here via H S Truman firing Douglas MacArthur

J. Farmer said...

@DrWeevil:

When J. Farmer wrote (5:48pm) that all we have to do to is remove our troops from South Korea, I thought "How is that going to solve the problem? Kim's threatening to nuke Guam! Do we have to get our troops out of Guam, and the West Coast, and any other place his nukes can reach?"

First, never did I say "all we have to do." Second, that was in response to a supposed lack of concern for the lives of service members and their dependents stationed in Korea. Third, the point you have missed entirely is that the North's threats are almost entirely hollow. I think they're threat to attack is empty bluster. And I know this mostly because the North has a perennial habit of threatening to attack other countries, particularly the United States. They make it a routine to threaten military attack everything the US and the ROK engage in joint military exercises together. If the North Korean were to attack the US, they would be wiped out in the counterattack. So again, what does attacking the US get North Korea?

Michael K said...

"it is likely we would be at this same position with our without the Libya blunder."

I agree but that blunder guaranteed that we would never get him to disarm.

He has been threatening us and working hard to get the ability to attack us.

I still think shooting down one of his missile tests would provide a double message. We aren't afraid and we have to ability to neutralize him. China will have to do the heavy lifting on controlling him.

Those complaining that sanctions haven't helped should know that sanctions have never been tried. Every president since Clinton has relaxed them for promises.


AReasonableMan said...

Seriously, if we are doomed to shuffle off this mortal coil in the midst of a nuclear holocaust what two clowns could be more appropriate to lead us into that conflagration than Trump and Kim?

Michael K said...

"Doc Mike: we got here via H S Truman firing Douglas MacArthur"

MacA was getting senile.

Read about Ridgeway and the rapid stabilization in Hansen's book, "Savior Generals."

MacA was losing.

Howard said...

The post-apocalyptic historians will say: "All the warning signs were there... first the Cubbies won the world series, then a reality TV star was elected president, finally, a full solar eclipse cut a path across the US heartland..."

Michael K said...

ARM is getting progressively less serious as the months go by. Alzheimers ?

Michael K said...

Good point, Howard. Wait until Yellowstone blows. That will solve all our problems.

J. Farmer said...

@The Cracker Emcee Activist:

That would depend entirely how credible the government thinks the threat against Guam is.

I can't speak for anyone in "the government," but I am willing to bet it's about as credible as their last two dozen or so threats to attack us over the last decade or so.

Again, Trump didn't specify any particular tit-for-tat. You're one of the smarter people on here. I'm surprised you think there's some sort of inflexible prescient plan.

I never said there was a plan, prescient/incautious, flexible/inflexible. I am not attacking any particular plan. I am attacking a line of argument that says that the US should launch a military strike against North Korea for its nuclear program. I think that's a foolish course of action, and I am elucidating why.

Unknown said...

"The post-apocalyptic historians will say: "All the warning signs were there... first the Cubbies won the world series, then a reality TV star was elected president, finally, a full solar eclipse cut a path across the US heartland...""

We also just had a blood red moon, yesterday.

Howard said...

You make my point exact: Senile Mac wanted to Nuke the NorKs, just like Demento Dronald. Fortunately Mattis will be the modern day Bunker Ridgway.

The Cracker Emcee Activist said...

"I never said there was a plan, prescient/incautious, flexible/inflexible. I am not attacking any particular plan or course of action. I am attacking a line of argument that says that the US should launch a military strike against North Korea for its nuclear program. I think that's a foolish course of action, and I am elucidating why."

I agree. But I don't think the US has the slightest intention of launching a preemptive strike of any kind against North Korea.
One of the effects of all the hysterics of the last nine months is that people who should know better have fallen into the habit of discussing the improbable seriously. And not a bong in the room...

Howard said...

HAHAHA Mike. You've got that right, Gaia is a cold bitch. Between Yellowstone, the New Madrid seismic zone, magnetic pole reversal and the pending ice age, we will eventually be squashed.

AReasonableMan said...

It is difficult to overstate what a moron Trump is but deciding to engage in oneupmanship with Kim Jong Un has to be the dumbest thing he has done yet.

On the upside, he has now regained the lead in his competition with that fat idiot Kim for the world's dumbest leader. Good job President Trump, making America great again, one stupid act at a time.

Dr Weevil said...

J. Farmer writes:
"If the North Korean were to attack the US, they would be wiped out in the counterattack. So again, what does attacking the US get North Korea?"

Maybe ask the North Koreans what they got out of attacking the Pueblo in 1968 (answer: extended and gross humiliation of the U.S. and a military trophy they still show off), what they got from the axe-murders of two Americans in the DMZ in 1976 (2 dead Americans), what they got out of sinking a South Korean warship in 2010 (46 dead South Koreans), what they got out of murdering Otto Warmbier in a particularly disgusting way just this year (another humiliation of the U.S.). My list could easily be tripled or quadrupled. Maybe Kim doesn't think a U.S. president would wipe him and his buddies out if they nuked a city or two. Why should he? All three Kims have gotten away with everything they've tried since the Korean War, and there's more than one commentator on this thread who would object to any such retaliation if he succeeds in nuking a U.S. target.

Steve Uhr said...

Given that the threat of nuclear war is perhaps greater than at any time since 1962, one would hope the President would end his vacation early and return to the White House? Oh I forgot, he can't because they are fixing the AC system.

antiphone said...

Bill Clinton, Hillary and Obama, along with Bush, gave us this situation...

Yes, of course, if memory serves, it was Bill and Hillary Clinton that started the Korean war. Look deep enough and behind every problem we have today and you'll find the Clintons.

Unknown said...

"It is difficult to overstate what a moron Trump is but deciding to engage in oneupmanship with Kim Jong Un has to be the dumbest thing he has done yet. "

Two spoiled narcissistic man babies playing war. I do think Kim Jung Un might be smarter than Trump though, but suicidal.

Unknown said...

"Given that the threat of nuclear war is perhaps greater than at any time since 1962, one would hope the President would end his vacation early and return to the White House? Oh I forgot, he can't because they are fixing the AC system."

I can only imagine what they'd say if Obama would've remained on vacation away from the White House under similar circumstances, even if it is a "dump."

AReasonableMan said...

For two great bullshit artists - Send in the Clowns

J. Farmer said...

@Dr Weevil:

Maybe Kim doesn't think a U.S. president would wipe him and his buddies out if they nuked a city or two. Why should he?

Hmm...because launching an unprovoked military attack against a US city would be a clearcut casus belli, and the US would be perfectly within its right (and it's obligation as a nation-state) to launch a counterattack. The small, isolated examples you give are orders of magnitude different than that.

All three Kims have gotten away with everything they've tried since the Korean War, and there's more than one commentator on this thread who would object to any such retaliation if he succeeds in nuking a U.S. target.

Yes, and "everything they've tried" has led them to lead a small, impoverished, isolated state that has a GDP per capita that is about 1-2% of the GDP per capita of Mississippi.

Howard said...

Cracker and his fellow "patriots" are basically supporting the "Boy who cried Wolf" strategy to nuclear confrontation. It fits with the basic psych profile the FBI is currently working up on the Althouse regulars.

AReasonableMan said...

AReasonableMan said...
Can you think of a current world leader more similar to Trump than Kim Jong Un?


This was not a trick question.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

...and frankly power...

Right. Because at the last second he realized that just going on about "fire and fury" made him sound like a temperamental, pyromaniacal child.

Will it or will it not be a miracle if the country and planet survives his tenure?

The only silver lining is that Trump positions himself between me and a Korean child-dictator's nuclear arsenal. I could certainly think of less worthy human shields.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

I can only imagine what they'd say if Obama would've remained on vacation away from the White House under similar circumstances, even if it is a "dump."

They would have called for hearings, investigations, impeachment proceedings, shout-outs to Breitbart, called him an incompetent affirmative action beneficiary, entitled, threatened the debt ceiling, the economy, our nation's credit rating and done all sorts of other dramatic, spiteful, unpatriotic and self-defeating things.

Oh yeah. They did anyway.

J. Farmer said...

AReasonableMan:

Can you think of a current world leader more similar to Trump than Kim Jong Un?

This was not a trick question.


So go ahead and make the case. I know I for one am dying to hear it.

Dr Weevil said...

All the things I mentioned were 'clearcut casus belli', as is firing missiles into Japanese territorial waters, and we already have a perfect right to a counterattack, but have done nothing. Why should Kim believe a larger provocation would be met with violence? He's not only crazy himself, he's been dealing with Obama and now with someone you all insist is a moron and a loser.

Of course, unlike other "small, impoverished, isolated" states in the world (Paraguay, Fiji, Lesotho, Bhutan) North Korea is a nuclear power and a terror to half the world, while Kim and his generals live in luxury. Why should this Kim change his ways?

Unknown said...

"Will it or will it not be a miracle if the country and planet survives his tenure?"

It will.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

I have never heard a president say anything more unsteady, uncertain, and ("frankly") unprepared than when Trump read that statement today.

But I guess beating Hillary makes it worth it. Let's hear it for nuclear standoffs!

AReasonableMan said...

Similarities between Trump and Kim Jong Un:

Both are fat
Both are stupid
Both are bumptious blowhards
Both have nukes
Both have ridiculous hair styles
Both like junk food
Both inherited their wealth
Both play golf
Both like to control the media
Both are not respected by other world leaders
Both are egotistical maniacs and camera whores

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

I see that Michael K Kontrol Freak's hypersensitivity impulses have kicked in. So much personally-directed anger. Trump's bluster must make him as nervous as an assistant's unsteady hands.

pious agnostic said...

Lot of BS on this thread.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

That's a good list!

Both play golf

And they both wildly exaggerate their records. Find some of the quotes they've attributed to their game. A side-by-side comparison of their boasting claims is as hilarious as it gets.

antiphone said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Trump did a pretty good job of reclaiming our so-called role as world's policeman today. Geez, I was really missing America having to take on the whole world's problems.

Michael K said...

" it was Bill and Hillary Clinton that started the Korean war. Look deep enough and behind every problem we have today and you'll find the Clintons."

I hate to have to teach history to leftists but Stalin started the Korean War. Eisenhower ended it with the help of Matthew Ridgeway.

Bill Clinton did, however, make a deal with NK to fund them and send fuel oil for a promise to stop their nuclear program,

Do you happen to remember how that turned out? About like Obama's Iran deal.

I'll grant you that Condi Rice convinced Bush to play along but Obama and Clinton kicked the can down the road as nuclear weapons got closer.

You probably don't know who Stanley Baldwin was but there are similarities.

Try to educate yourself. It would make your comments more intelligent.

Michael K said...

"Lot of BS on this thread."

Yes, McDonald's shift ended.

AReasonableMan said...

Donald Trump Trump sees something of himself in North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un

I see more than something.

Earnest Prole said...

So now that Trump’s red line was crossed with the Guam threat, he has a choice: fire and fury, or live out the remainder of his presidency as the white Obama.

Richard said...

I thought that the “Better Red than Dead” crowd went away with the fall of the Berlin wall. It didn’t take them long to resurface.

AReasonableMan said...

Top Five Similarities Between Donald Trump and Kim Jong-Il

Unknown said...

"" it was Bill and Hillary Clinton that started the Korean war. Look deep enough and behind every problem we have today and you'll find the Clintons."

I hate to have to teach history to leftists but Stalin started the Korean War. Eisenhower ended it with the help of Matthew Ridgeway."

Your sarcasm meter broken?

Michael K said...

"Your sarcasm meter broken? "

Nope.


The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Yes, McDonald's shift ended.

How lucky you are that someone as unoriginal and repetitive as you still somehow managed to figure out a way to make a living.

Anyway, run along. Soon the nursemaid will be by to change your diaper.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

"Your sarcasm meter broken? "

His everything is broken.

NURSEMAID! COME FIX ME!

AReasonableMan said...

The Toothless Revolutionary said...
How lucky you are that someone as unoriginal and repetitive as you still somehow managed to figure out a way to make a living.


Shame that didn't translate into saving for an adequate retirement plan.

J. Farmer said...

@DrWeevil:

Why should Kim believe a larger provocation would be met with violence?

Because, as I said, launching a military attack against the US mainland is orders of magnitude different than anything you mentioned.

Of course, unlike other "small, impoverished, isolated" states in the world (Paraguay, Fiji, Lesotho, Bhutan) North Korea is a nuclear power and a terror to half the world, while Kim and his generals live in luxury. Why should this Kim change his ways?

If he is a terror to half the world, I think it will come as a surprise to half the world. I'm not sure how much time you've sent in Seoul, where I used to live for a time. It's 35 miles from the DMZ and strangely none of the dozens of people I have met and know in Seoul feel "terror" about the North. In fact, their most common attitude towards the North is blithe disregard. Russia and China don't like tensions on the peninsula, but they don't want war with North Korea either.

Why should this Kim change his ways?

If you think that Kim Jung Un will launch an attack on a US city because he believes the US will do nothing, then there is probably nothing I can say that will dissuade you. The North Koreans have made a show of stepping their toe over the line and then backing done for years. Take one of your examples. The DMZ axe incident, which was prompted by the cutting down of trees. When forces went into to destroy the remaining trees, and the North Koreans setup machine guns in a supposed retaliatory fashion, they did nothing.


The Toothless Revolutionary said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Shame that didn't translate into saving for an adequate retirement plan.

That's a good point! I always remember him talking about retiring, etc. and now with all the bitching about California cost-of-living and yapping his flap about getting some weird military doctor job it's obvious he couldn't figure out jack shit about his senior expenses.

Mikey, too bad you're not perfect. Perhaps an orange pompadour wig and more pouting, glowering and strutting will help.

AReasonableMan said...

And even a meme.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Nothing gets the crusty panties of the resident leftists here moist like being able to take the side of a Communist dictatorship that is threatening the United States with nuclear weapons.

You cunts will be so sad when your fat kid idealogical buddy is dead. You may not have your latin lover Maduro around much longer either.

AReasonableMan said...

Inauguration day.

J. Farmer said...

President-Mom-Jeans:

Nothing gets the crusty panties of the resident leftists here moist like being able to take the side of a Communist dictatorship that is threatening the United States with nuclear weapons.

You do understand that being opposed to war with North Korea can be a good idea even if leftists think so, too? In fact, there are many arguments against war with North Korea from the right. Why don't you take up their arguments instead of just thinking you can be against anything a "leftist" is against and you'll automatically be correct?

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

How lucky we are to have PMJ to bring the delusional contingent to the crowd.

I'll bet you your life savings that Kim Jong Un is around by whenever Trump leaves office.

Bush taught them that lesson. Get nukes if you don't want regime change.

They learned well.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

You do understand that being opposed to war with North Korea can be a good idea even if leftists think so, too?

No. Actually, most righties are notoriously poor thinkers. Instead, they identify enemies and define the opposite of what they do as somehow "good."

AReasonableMan said...

President-Mom-Jeans, you cannot imagine the sorrow we all felt when we heard that the tranny you had been living with cut off your penis with a pair of pinking shears and ran it through a blender. Although it could conceivably help with your syphilitic dementia, it is a tough break.

We are all rooting for you.

Earnest Prole said...

Bush taught them that lesson. Get nukes if you don't want regime change.

It was Hillary and Obama who taught that lesson most effectively. Muammar Gaddafi offered up his nuclear program and said "here, take this, I want to play by your rules now." He was rewarded with a bullet to the head.

J. Farmer said...

@The Toothless Revolutionary:

No. Actually, most righties are notoriously poor thinkers. Instead, they identify enemies and define the opposite of what they do as somehow "good."

Interesting, there seems to be another political group in America that strikes me as doing the same exact thing.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

HW Bush, Clinton, W, and Obama all let it get to this point. Plenty of blame to go around on a bipartisan basis. They should have taken out the threat before they were able to develop their nuclear and missile programs to this point.

They didn't, and here we are. Overwhelming strikes, including tactical nukes are the least worst option. The Japanese were a lot better off a generation later, and the starving north Koreans will be too.

Or, we can just wait until they have enough miniaturization and missiles to take out a few west coast cities, as all of the preening liberal retards here are advocating.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Sounds pretty transphobic, Unreasonable Bitch. Not very woke. I hope you don't work at Google.

Fabi said...

"...you cannot imagine the sorrow we all felt when we heard that the tranny you had been living with cut off your penis with a pair of pinking shears and ran it through a blender."

We haven't have a five alarm ARM meltdown in almost a year. Don't stop now!

J. Farmer said...

@President-Mom-Jeans:

Or, we can just wait until they have enough miniaturization and missiles to take out a few west coast cities, as all of the preening liberal retards here are advocating.

Let me then ask a basic question: if North Korea launched an attack on the US, it would be obliterated in the counterattack. So, what about the regime makes you think it's willing to commit suicide? Do you honestly believe that they have spent decades pursuing nuclear capabilities so that they can launch an attack on the US and get totally destroyed as a consequence?

CWJ said...

Wow,

The snide is heavy in this thread. Light on reasoned argument perhaps, but oh boy the "left" has found its mojo again.

Dr Weevil said...

I should feel comforted that the North Koreans always back down? They kill two Americans with axes and then . . . hand over the killers for trial? Punish them themselves? Apologize, even? No, they fail to kill any more U.S. solders when faced with overwhelming forces. Cold comfort.

As for the residents of Seoul, if they're not the least bit worried about the amount of weaponry pointed at them from so close by, and the obvious lunacy of the man in charge of that weaponry, they are deep in psychological denial.

I must say this entire thread is one of the worst I've seen here: the number of people whose loathing for Trump has driven them to lose touch with reality is depressing.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Interesting, there seems to be another political group in America that strikes me as doing the same exact thing.

Maybe you need to be stricken a little harder then because that's not exactly the case at all.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

I believe that a megalomaniacal hereditary dictatorship that forces its people to worship generations of short fat murderers, who has family members murdered in broad daylight in other countries, and who has been making the technological advances to carry out their threat is not to be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

I don't trust the Iranian mullahs to not be suicidal either. You are attributing sane and rational motives to the Kim dynasty. That is not a risk that I am willing to bear.

Steve Uhr said...

I suppose a couple of nukes on Guam would take care of their horrible snake problem. Always a silver lining if you just look hard enough.

J. Farmer said...

@DrWeevil:

No, they fail to kill any more U.S. solders when faced with overwhelming forces. Cold comfort.

Yet your argument was because we didn't launch a military assault in response to two soldiers being murdered by a group of other soldiers, then they believe they can firebomb a city and won't be attacked, too.

As for the residents of Seoul, if they're not the least bit worried about the amount of weaponry pointed at them from so close by, and the obvious lunacy of the man in charge of that weaponry, they are deep in psychological denial.

Or they've been living with their neighbors to the north for almost 60 years and believe that the same forces that have kept them on their side of the DMZ will continue to keep them there.

I must say this entire thread is one of the worst I've seen here: the number of people whose loathing for Trump has driven them to lose touch with reality is depressing.

Who cares? Even if that's true, it's the argument the matter, not your supposed divination of people's motives for making their arguments. For what it's worth, I supported and voted for Trump, mostly for immigration and trade, but also because he was the only one even paying lip service to non-interventionism. I've always half-believed if it was just lip service but I was still willing to go with the known unknown of possible anti-interventionism than with the known known interventionism of Trump's opponent.

AReasonableMan said...

Steve Uhr said...
I suppose a couple of nukes on Guam would take care of their horrible snake problem.


If the Clintons were visiting Guam at the same time Trump could frame it as a victory and 37% of the population would agree with him.

J. Farmer said...

President-Mom-Jeans:

I don't trust the Iranian mullahs to not be suicidal either. You are attributing sane and rational motives to the Kim dynasty. That is not a risk that I am willing to bear.

And what evidence do you have that he is motivated by insanity or irrationality?

@The Toothless Revolutionary:

Maybe you need to be stricken a little harder then because that's not exactly the case at all.

Odd, and it seemed to me like your statement was Exhibit A of my point: "Actually, most righties are notoriously poor thinkers. Instead, they identify enemies and define the opposite of what they do as somehow 'good.'"

BobJustBob said...

President-M0m-Jeans:

That was my thought as I read the responses of the resident lefties...it sounds a whole lot like the noise they made covering for the Soviets.

I especially liked the classic "They Only Need Nukes Because We Have Them Surrounded" and the always popular "If We Just Disarmed They Would Too" .

It's nice for them to have something for them to get revved up about again.

Obama was such a buzz kill.

The Cracker Emcee Activist said...

""Will it or will it not be a miracle if the country and planet survives his tenure?"

It will."

This encapsulates my point perfectly. The Left is either so hysterical or so laughably unserious that it's nearly impossible to divine any clarity through the white noise. I suppose that's the idea but I doubt it proves to be a good one.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Its hard to concentrate on trivial matters like nuclear attacks by a communist dictatorship on the United States, when we have important matters to attend to like why AReasonableMan is making transphobic statements implying that "trannys" are prone to violence.

Instead of going with a Lorenna Bobbit reference, as a woke person might do, instead he had to resort to transphobic slurs and stereotypes. How dare you. This blatant transphobia must not stand.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 346   Newer› Newest»