Wait to be bombed or bomb now?

There it is again. The shiny object used to deflect your attention from real issues.

Iran, Iraq and N. Korea have, for 30 years, been that shiny object. whenever there's something the government doesn't want people thinking or talking about, up come Kim Jong What's his face or whoever is in charge in Iran, or Oh, wait, Bush was stupid enough to take out Hussein which changed Iraq from a fake threat to an actual threat. DOH!

Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, Obama, and now Trump the script is always the same.

 

Negotiate? . Bit difficult isnt it. Some humans decide not to.

 

A

Amazing how one can ask a simply question and all one gets is intimidating reply like this. If you cant answer the question why post?
The question basically is...what is the reason fir waiting 4 years when the ICBM threat is real and on its way in the stratosphere?

 

The threat isn't real.
The threat from Iraq wasn't real.
The threat from Iran isn't real.

The threat isn't real. It is just your government, once again, as hit has since the mid 80s, blowing smoke up your ass to keep you from thinking about real issues.

And, of course, like so many others, you oblige them.

AND

You think that post was "intimidating?" I'm pretty sure that post would be viewed by 99% of the world as an attempt to calm the panic.

 

Your assumptions are ridiculous.

You live in Florida right. Its more YOUR Govt than mine...I dont live in your country. Assumption incorrect on your part.
(Respect I have for all members of the USA armed forces of course. Just sayin')

 

Oh, those rockets are just fireworks?

Granted though the Iraqi WMD's were a joke. Bush stuffed up there.

 

My government? Bush' "coalition of the willing" included 22 countries.

But, yeah, my government is the chief perpetrator of the panic but you seem more than willing to be fooled like so many others so it appears national origin is not the issue.

 

These weapons are defensive. No one (except a Republican, see neutron bomb) would use a thermonuclear device as an offensive weapon. Perhaps if you'd grant to the rulers of N Korea and Iran the same intellectual level you possess it would open your eyes to reality.

N. Korea's weapons pose no threat to the US or any other nation unless N Korea is attacked.

 

We are talking about North Korea 2017 not what happened 2003. Somme long bows can be drawn, I accept your refetence to what has occured many moons ago. But it does nothing to answer my original question of this thread

 

So, the United Nation sanctions of 20+ years were not required because Nk's weapons were just "defensive"?

 

It does, in fact answer your question.

Do nothing. We will effectively do nothing. China will help us effectively do nothing. Some "agreement" will be reached and we'll throw N Korea some food or medicine and the status quo will return until another distraction is required.

At some point this hand will play out at which time the current dictator will be replaced and the dance will start again.

 

What have those sanctions accomplished? Have they kept N. Korea from developing a weapon? Building missiles?

Do you know what caused the Soviet Union to collapse? No, it wasn't Reagan and Reagan's defense buildup. It was, quite simply, Big Macs and Levis.

If you really want to take down N. Korea call Macy's, Starbucks, and Wal Mart.

If you want to preserve the status quo, just keep on keepin on.

 

I am not so sure it has been made clear that China will be the recipient of a full retaliatory nuclear strike if North Korea nukes anyone:

“the Supreme Commander of the Korean People's Army and the Commander of the Chinese People's Volunteers, on the other hand,”
https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=85&page=transcript

We should wait to be bombed unless we have a treaty with Russia and China (that removes them from the armistice), and South Korea agrees to the strike. There are simply too many lives at stake to strike first, when there is always a possibility of a Mission Impossible replacement of the North Korean god. Mission Impossible should be attempted first.

 

U.S. weapons pose no threat to North Korea or any other nation unless U.S. is attacked.

 

Not such a bad philosophy. ..really. I suppose it depends on the "real" goal of jong un, if he is just sabre rattling or directly means what he threatens.
I think also, the USA would never want to take chances ala Pearl Harbor?

 

In my opinion, the U.S. must never fall under the nuclear shadow of NK. And that is, of course, what NK is working towards. This means that, one way or the other, their nuclear program must be stopped. My hope is that China will act and actually do something about NK. But if they don't, then yes, it is better that we act before NK has the ability to attack Hawaii, Alaska, and the continental west coast with nukes rather than after they have that ability.

 

The mirror post was pointing out the absurdity of an attachment of any “liberal” brain to the crazy fat kid’s brain. Each new generation of North Koreans is removed from any memory of anything else; they have no normal grandfathers like the Japanese, Italians, and Germans of WWII.

Prediction of what any one brain will do is impossible and risky. Might as well get the “liberal” to authorize all of us owning nukes per the Second Amendment, if they feel so safe saying there is no threat from the crazy fat kid. “Liberals” though by definition are too open minded to illogic.

Once they have the ability to attack us (ICBMs), we can assume we will be paying tribute forever to keep the crazy fat kids happy. This is not a Pearl Harbor size threat, a million dead now or 20 million…

 

Once you start dropping nukes you’re into a far different ball game which could almost certainly drag Russia into reacting, resulting in all out nuclear war and that’s a doomsday scenario. Left or right doesn’t matter a damn if you’re dead, wise up and get that bum out of the Oval Office like now.

 

Left or right doesn’t matter a damn if you’re dead, wise up and get that crazy fat kid out of North Korea like now.

 

The trouble with our so-called president is that he is convinced he knows more than everybody. "I know more about ISIS than the generals, believe me".
I also don't like handing it to generals - their business is war - they are nearly always for war.
As Flynn has shown, there are some mentally "loose" generals, too.

War should always be a last resort. Recently, it hasn't been.

 

MAD [Mutually assured destruction] applies to NK like anyone else. Attack us and the world ends. So what's the worry?

 

I'm just saying if we hit first without a UN mandate its an aggressive act of war and if they nuke something first they are a terror state using a WMD on an innocent target and therefore a threat who must be at that point eliminated and we would have every reason to go in hard as would China, and they by reports have troops on the border ready to do that.

 

Re: I also don't like handing it to generals - their business is war - they are nearly always for war.
As Flynn has shown, there are some mentally "loose" generals,

Valid point and a concern

 

Well, you can't go by me. But, I say destroy N.K like a nest of wasps. When the radioactivity dies off, give it to China.

 

Hmmm...I'm pretty sure both Afghanistan and Syria disagree with you.