Trump's first UN Speech.

[Lightbringer]

Terms being "if the U.S. has to defend itself or an ally against an attack from NK, it will respond with military force". I' think those terms are fair. If NK ex. launches a bomb at ex. our western coast, or Japan, America will respond with military force.

Are you suggesting that North Korea was not aware of that by attacking the U.S. there will be military retaliation?

You're downplaying Trump's statement. He already threatened North Korea multiple times in the context of "totally destroying" it and "unleashing fire and fury, and frankly power, like the world has never seen."

So let me ask you, was that an effective approach? Because it seems to have done nothing but stir the hornet's nest. North Korea was already shooting missiles right over Japan after Trump's previous threats and now is threatening to test a hydrogen bomb within Japan's vicinity.

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

Kim Jong Ung response:

Spoiler

"The mentally deranged behavior of the U.S. president openly expressing on the UN arena the unethical will to "totally destroy" a sovereign state, beyond the boundary of threats of regime change or overturn of social system, makes even those with normal thinking faculty think about discretion and composure."

"Whatever Trump might have expected, he will face results beyond his expectation. I will surely and definitely tame the mentally deranged U. S. dotard with fire."

Full text here:

You must be registered for see links

The idea of having no choice but to totally destroy North Korea is basically threatening a war crime. You're not supposed to directly threaten to kill civilians. Obviously this may be just be a norm of war, but those things have proven to the very least mitigate the horrors of war. Theoretically, that's what the UN is supposed to be about.

Btw, stop sensationalizing a potential war with NK as a moral evil ("genocidal", "war crime"). Responding to a military attack with military force has been the cause of nearly all major historical wars. Most people don't want war, but many times war is a necessary action. Do you think ex.

@Bold: Where exactly did I do that? I think you're taking my words out of context. I never never mentioned anything about responding with military action in self defense as a moral evil nor mentioned morality at all in my comments. Responding with a nuclear attack or an attack that would "totally destroy North Korea" is another matter.

I'm not sensationalizing anything. That is what a war crime and genocide is. You're criticizing me for accurately defining the context of Trump's words.

And frankly, I find your comment ironic as Hillary escalated tensions with Russia in roughly the same way Trump is doing with North Korea, which I was against as well, and I'm sure you were too.

America responding w/ military force to the pearl habor attacks was a genocidal war crime?

If you're referring to the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a military response; yeah, that is absolutely a war crime, without question.

You must be registered for see links

Spoiler

"1. The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.

2. For the purpose of this Statute, ‘war crimes’ means:

a. Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:

i. Wilful killing

ii. Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;

iii. Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;

iv. Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;

v. Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power;

vi. Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;

vii. Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement;

viii. Taking of hostages."



b. Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

i. Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;

ii. Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;

iii. Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;

iv. Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;

v. Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;

vi. Killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

vii. Making improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury;

viii. The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory;

ix. Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives;

x. Subjecting persons who are in the power of an adverse party to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his or her interest, and which cause death to or seriously endanger the health of such person or persons;

xi. Killing or wounding treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;
Declaring that no quarter will be given;

xii. Destroying or seizing the enemy's property unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;

xiii. Declaring abolished, suspended or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party;

xiv. Compelling the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war;

xv. Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault;
Employing poison or poisoned weapons;

xvi. Employing asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all analogous liquids, materials or devices;

xvii. Employing bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions;

xviii. Employing weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering or which are inherently indiscriminate in violation of the international law of armed conflict, provided that such weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare are the subject of a comprehensive prohibition and are included in an annex to this Statute, by an amendment in accordance with the relevant provisions set forth in articles 121 and 123;

xix. Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, as defined in article 7, paragraph 2 (f), enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence also constituting a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions;

xx. Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations;

xxi. Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law;

xxii. Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions;

xxiii. Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into the national armed forces or using them to participate actively in hostilities.

 

[kimb]

Are you suggesting that North Korea was not aware of that by attacking the U.S. there will be military retaliation?

You're downplaying Trump's statement. He already threatened North Korea multiple times in the context of "totally destroying" it and "unleashing fire and fury, and frankly power, like the world has never seen."

So let me ask you, was that an effective approach? Because it seems to have done nothing but stir the hornet's nest. North Korea was already shooting missiles right over Japan after Trump's previous threats and now is threatening to test a hydrogen bomb within Japan's vicinity.

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

Kim Jong Ung response:

"The mentally deranged behavior of the U.S. president openly expressing on the UN arena the unethical will to "totally destroy" a sovereign state, beyond the boundary of threats of regime change or overturn of social system, makes even those with normal thinking faculty think about discretion and composure."

"Whatever Trump might have expected, he will face results beyond his expectation. I will surely and definitely tame the mentally deranged U. S. dotard with fire."

Full text here:

You must be registered for see links

The idea of having no choice but to totally destroy North Korea is basically threatening a war crime. You're not supposed to directly threaten to kill civilians. Obviously this may be just be a norm of war, but those things have proven to the very least mitigate the horrors of war. Theoretically, that's what the UN is supposed to be about.





@Bold: Where exactly did I do that? I think you're taking my words out of context. I never never mentioned anything about responding with military action in self defense as a moral evil nor mentioned morality at all in my comments. Responding with a nuclear attack or an attack that would "totally destroy North Korea" is another matter.

I'm not sensationalizing anything. That is what a war crime and genocide is. You're criticizing me for accurately defining the context of Trump's words.

And frankly, I find your comment ironic as Hillary escalated tensions with Russia in roughly the same way Trump is doing with North Korea, which I was against as well, and I'm sure you were too.





If you're referring to the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a military response; yeah, that is absolutely a war crime, without question.

You must be registered for see links

"1. The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.

2. For the purpose of this Statute, ‘war crimes’ means:

a. Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:

i. Wilful killing

ii. Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;

iii. Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;

iv. Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;

v. Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power;

vi. Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;

vii. Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement;

viii. Taking of hostages."



b. Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

i. Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;

ii. Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;

iii. Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;

iv. Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;

v. Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;

vi. Killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

vii. Making improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury;

viii. The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory;

ix. Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives;

x. Subjecting persons who are in the power of an adverse party to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his or her interest, and which cause death to or seriously endanger the health of such person or persons;

xi. Killing or wounding treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;
Declaring that no quarter will be given;

xii. Destroying or seizing the enemy's property unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;

xiii. Declaring abolished, suspended or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party;

xiv. Compelling the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war;

xv. Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault;
Employing poison or poisoned weapons;

xvi. Employing asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all analogous liquids, materials or devices;

xvii. Employing bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions;

xviii. Employing weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering or which are inherently indiscriminate in violation of the international law of armed conflict, provided that such weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare are the subject of a comprehensive prohibition and are included in an annex to this Statute, by an amendment in accordance with the relevant provisions set forth in articles 121 and 123;

xix. Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, as defined in article 7, paragraph 2 (f), enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence also constituting a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions;

xx. Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations;

xxi. Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law;

xxii. Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions;

xxiii. Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into the national armed forces or using them to participate actively in hostilities.

Too long; Did not read; Will not read. (skimmed like a motherf****)

You're 1,000+ word response is a great reminder why I told myself to stay away from this site, more specifically this forum. "Presenting" yourself as competent is far too time consuming.

I'm not downplaying Trumps statements, Trump is exaggerating his statements. Trump is has been known to informally exaggerate or downplay depending on the context and how it effects his reputation (beneficial or harmful). Ex. If 25,000 people showed up to one of his rallies, he'd claim 50,000 came[I/]. I don't believe it's a fair evaluation of Trump's speech to not take into effect the nature of Trump's "off the cuff" vernacular, and interpret all of his claims in the most literal meaning possible. If you want to do as MSNBC does and fail to distinguish fact from fiction (grounded reality and hyperbole), fine. Trump literally wants to "unleash fire and fury, and frankly power, like the world has never seen.", Anyone who favors rationale over partisanship will not take you seriously. I still can't read that fire and fury quote with a straight face.

I chose (one of) the worst example of war related military retaliation in history. Whether or not the nuking of Japan was a war crime was up for debate before the nukes were dropped to this very day, so I just opened up a can of over half a centuries worth of debate by bringing it up. Some historians side with you, some side with me. It's definitely not as black and white as I thought it was when looking into it. I've already spent around 36 mins. skimming through various articles on both sides of the debate and I still feel like I'm only scratching the surface. Not worth my time, I failed to defend my position. You can take the W if you want.

Researching war articles wasn't a complete waste of time, I got to spend some time learning in on the Vietnam war. Turns out it wasn't a complete waste of time and resources as I learned in 11th grade world history.

 

[Lightbringer]

Too long; Did not read; Will not read. (skimmed like a motherf****)

You're 1,000+ word response is a great reminder why I told myself to stay away from this site, more specifically this forum. "Presenting" yourself as competent is far too time consuming.

I'm not downplaying Trumps statements, Trump is exaggerating his statements. Trump is has been known to informally exaggerate or downplay depending on the context and how it effects his reputation (beneficial or harmful). Ex. If 25,000 people showed up to one of his rallies, he'd claim 50,000 came[I/]. I don't believe it's a fair evaluation of Trump's speech to not take into effect the nature of Trump's "off the cuff" vernacular, and interpret all of his claims in the most literal meaning possible. If you want to do as MSNBC does and fail to distinguish fact from fiction (grounded reality and hyperbole), fine. Trump literally wants to "unleash fire and fury, and frankly power, like the world has never seen.", Anyone who favors rationale over partisanship will not take you seriously. I still can't read that fire and fury quote with a straight face.

I chose (one of) the worst example of war related military retaliation in history. Whether or not the nuking of Japan was a war crime was up for debate before the nukes were dropped to this very day, so I just opened up a can of over half a centuries worth of debate by bringing it up. Some historians side with you, some side with me. It's definitely not as black and white as I thought it was when looking into it. I've already spent around 36 mins. skimming through various articles on both sides of the debate and I still feel like I'm only scratching the surface. Not worth my time, I failed to defend my position. You can take the W if you want.

Researching war articles wasn't a complete waste of time, I got to spend some time learning in on the Vietnam war. Turns out it wasn't a complete waste of time and resources as I learned in 11th grade world history.

The problem with your assertion of Trump is that we don't know how literal Trump's rhetoric was. If you recall, he was privy to using nukes during his campaign. So it's not an outlandish idea to suggest that his remarks against North Korea could be literal.

The nuking of Nagasaki and Hiroshima may not have been defined as a war crime at the time of the dropping, but it is now. I'll give the exception to the fact that the U.S. was not fully aware of the devastating power of the nuclear bomb, but they were aware that there would have been many civilian casualties. But that's beside the point.

But let me ask you again, do you think think Trump's approach with North Korea was an effective one?

And do you think my criticism of Trump's handling of the situation is unjust?

I recall you telling me you were anti-war. I don't see why you wouldn't have a problem with this escalation. Keep in mind that Kim Jong Ung is an unstable leader.

 

[kimb]

The problem with your assertion of Trump is that we don't know how literal Trump's rhetoric was. If you recall, he was privy to using nukes during his campaign. So it's not an outlandish idea to suggest that his remarks against North Korea could be literal.

The nuking of Nagasaki and Hiroshima may not have been defined as a war crime at the time of the dropping, but it is now. I'll give the exception to the fact that the U.S. was not fully aware of the devastating power of the nuclear bomb, but they were aware that there would have been many civilian casualties. But that's beside the point.

But let me ask you again, do you think think Trump's approach with North Korea was an effective one?

And do you think my criticism of Trump's handling of the situation is unjust?

I recall you telling me you were anti-war. I don't see why you wouldn't have a problem with this escalation. Keep in mind that Kim Jong Ung is an unstable leader.

"acknowledges KJU, a war-bent leader of a radical authoritarian communist regime, is unstable"
"doesn't see a reason for escalation"

"IF" Trump is a child with access to the big red buttons in the oval office, Kim Jong Un is a morally bankrupt, autistic child with access to whatever color buttons the North Koreans color code "Bomb" with, in whatever shaped office he conducts his military operations in. Except in Un's case, he only wants to press the big buttons.

"Was Trumps approach an effective one?" Yes, it was not the best one, and it definitely couldn't have been better, but Trump said what Obama, or Hillary would have said, only he did it the way Trump would do it, rather than the way a soulless, hollow shell of a human-being, politician would have said it. Sanctions haven't worked, and will not work. And I don't think after 50+ years of begrudging resentment towards the U.S. we'd be able to peacefully offer an olive branch to North Korea, and have a sit down. Not that we would deal with the likes of Kim Jong Un's inhumane regime.

 

[Lightbringer]

"acknowledges KJU, a war-bent leader of a radical authoritarian communist regime, is unstable"
"doesn't see a reason for escalation"

I am trying to make sense of your rationale. So you think it's wise to provoke an unstable leader?

If you want to avoid full scale war, escalation would be the last thing you'd want to do.

"IF" Trump is a child with access to the big red buttons in the oval office, Kim Jong Un is a morally bankrupt, autistic child with access to whatever color buttons the North Koreans color code "Bomb" with, in whatever shaped office he conducts his military operations in. Except in Un's case, he only wants to press the big buttons.

But he hasn't unless we give him a reason to. It sounds like you're implying that you're in favor of simply preemptively striking North Korea rather than just act in self-defense?

"Was Trumps approach an effective one?" Yes, it was not the best one, and it definitely couldn't have been better, but Trump said what Obama, or Hillary would have said, only he did it the way Trump would do it, rather than the way a soulless, hollow shell of a human-being, politician would have said it.

But that is an objectively wrong opinion since all that Trump's rhetoric did was stir the hornet's nest. Like I've mentioned in my previous comment; Trump's previous threat to North Korea was ignored and responded by shooting missiles over Japan.

Now North Korea is responding by saying that they're planning to test a Hydrogen bomb within our atmosphere, when that hasn't been done in over 35 years. It's unprecedented.

Trump's rhetoric only made the situation with North Korea worse than it already was. What exactly was accomplished?


@Bold: Are you saying that both Obama and Hillary are more morally bankrupt and dishonest than Trump?

Sanctions haven't worked, and will not work. And I don't think after 50+ years of begrudging resentment towards the U.S. we'd be able to peacefully offer an olive branch to North Korea, and have a sit down. Not that we would deal with the likes of Kim Jong Un's inhumane regime.

Never said anything about an olive branch. There's always going to be hostile nations, but that's not the cause for initiating regime change.

 

[kimb]

I am trying to make sense of your rationale. So you think it's wise to provoke an unstable leader?

If you want to avoid full scale war, escalation would be the last thing you'd want to do.





But he hasn't unless we give him a reason to. It sounds like you're implying that you're in favor of simply preemptively striking North Korea rather than just act in self-defense?





But that is an objectively wrong opinion since all that Trump's rhetoric did was stir the hornet's nest. Like I've mentioned in my previous comment; Trump's previous threat to North Korea was ignored and responded by shooting missiles over Japan.

Now North Korea is responding by saying that they're planning to test a Hydrogen bomb within our atmosphere, when that hasn't been done in over 35 years. It's unprecedented.

Trump's rhetoric only made the situation with North Korea worse than it already was. What exactly was accomplished?


@Bold: Are you saying that both Obama and Hillary are more morally bankrupt and dishonest than Trump?





Never said anything about an olive branch. There's always going to be hostile nations, but that's not the cause for initiating regime change.

Quick question, are you aware of the history behind the Korean war?

And yes, I'm in favor of taking out a radical communist regime working on hydrogen bombs before they get a chance to launch a hydrogen bomb. Lets not act like they didn't threaten like half of their surrounding countries with their own fire and fury.

 

[Lightbringer]

Quick question, are you aware of the history behind the Korean war?

And yes, I'm in favor of taking out a radical communist regime working on hydrogen bombs before they get a chance to launch a hydrogen bomb. Lets not act like they didn't threaten like half of their surrounding countries with their own fire and fury.

I'm not going to press you over dodging the majority of my points.

Evidently, it seems you glanced over the fact that by preemptively attacking North Korea, we would be risking wiping out South Korea, a portion of Japan, and also drawing China into this conflict.

If you're arguing that you want to stop North Korea testing a hydrogen bomb in order to prevent any substantial threat to the populace, it would be a contradictory notion as attacking North Korea preemptively would lead to an even greater catastrophe that would number in millions of casualties.

What you're proposing is irrational.

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

It's also incredibly hypocritical to not acknowledge that Trump and his statements are what escalated North Korea to make these threats, and now you're saying we are justified to preemptively attack North Korea for responding to the U.S. threats of "totally destroying" them. I thought you said that Trump's response was effective? If by effective you mean instigate war, then sure, I guess it was.



South Koreans are also more worried about the actions of Trump than their adversarial neighbors. Now that is a very telling sentiment.

You must be registered for see links

Also whatever happened to being anti-war?

Cool, I had you figured out to be farther left than the average moderate liberal, but I never saw you as a far left SJW, or antifa extremist.

I overlap on most of the views you have
Hide

-Anti-war

-Less military funding and reallocate those funds to things such as infrastructure, education, veteran assistance, etc.

-Investing in Green Energy

-Free and fair elections/no money in politics

-Decriminalization of Marijuana and even other drugs if the safety standards are met

-No more for profit prison

-Better training for police officer and mandatory bodycams.

-Pro Gay Marriage and LGBTQ rights.

-Against torture (Guantanamo Bay for example.)

-Free Speech, yet even for racists, as long as the message or the symbol does not incite violence.


If you had you attach a label or an ideology to me based off our previous interactions, arguments, and discussions, where would you say I'd land on the political spectrum from your POV?

 

[demon of the leaf]

Rocket Man is a popular song by Elton John. That was the joke.




Watch the video. He says "totally destroy North Korea."

There was a movie called rocket man that more then likely is the reference trump is using

 

[kimb]

I'm not going to press you over dodging the majority of my points.

Evidently, it seems you glanced over the fact that by preemptively attacking North Korea, we would be risking wiping out South Korea, a portion of Japan, and also drawing China into this conflict.

If you're arguing that you want to stop North Korea testing a hydrogen bomb in order to prevent any substantial threat to the populace, it would be a contradictory notion as attacking North Korea preemptively would lead to an even greater catastrophe that would number in millions of casualties.

What you're proposing is irrational.

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

It's also incredibly hypocritical to not acknowledge that Trump and his statements are what escalated North Korea to make these threats, and now you're saying we are justified to preemptively attack North Korea for responding to the U.S. threats of "totally destroying" them. I thought you said that Trump's response was effective? If by effective you mean instigate war, then sure, I guess it was.



South Koreans are also more worried about the actions of Trump than their adversarial neighbors. Now that is a very telling sentiment.

You must be registered for see links

Also whatever happened to being anti-war?

Lefty sources saying we shouldn't attack NK? Didn't see that coming. I could provide 5x articles from conservative sources saying we should attack NK, but I don't think you'd have fun reading page after page of biased media.

"Wiping out South Korea and parts of China?" Do you think the only form of military action the U.S. has in it's arsenal is dropping a nuke? Precise air strikes? Naval force? Drones? Reconnaissance? Raid operations? That all goes out the window because a nuke is the only possible answer to handling NK? Be real. NK is only now advancing beyond the era of Soviet Russian, Vietnam war military grade weaponry. The only threat, and the only reason why the United States giving NK the time of day is because of their expansion into second generation nuclear weapons. If we take out Kim's regime before they finalize development on their hydrogen bombs, then they pose no semblance of a threat to the U.S. military.

And how would a preemptive strike before NK drops a nuke in lets say, ex. Osaka, JPN, would lead to more causalities if the end result of an attack from NK would be a counter-strike from the U.S? Counter-strike, meaning after the loss of X million innocents, we would attack NK like we would if it were a preemptive strike, except in this instance NK would be prepared for such an attack and further more our response would be far more aggressive than it would have been if there was not a loss of innocent lives before hand.

"Also whatever happened to being anti-war?" I'm not a progressive who's anti-war, I do not object to the existence of war. The dictionary defines anti-war as “opposed to war in general or to the conduct of a specific war.” I'm aware that to be truly anti-war you must be in favor of actions that neutralizes aggression. I do not believe the will of being against violence will prevent violence. Progressives are anti-war on a sentimental level, I am anti-war on a prescriptive level.

For being "opposed to war" to mean something beyond impotent sentiments, you have to identify the causes of war and take a stand against them. You have to identify the causes of peace and take a stand for them, and in this instance I believe taking out a war-bent, radical, authoritarian, communist regime whose threaten several countries, before it's able to construct a weapon of mass destruction is taking a stand for peace. I believe preemptive strike is what it's going to take to prevent a true nuclear fallout in the case of a counter-attack from the U.S. or any of it's allies, everyone else opposed to such an attack offer NOTHING in terms of a solution aside from active negligence and ineffective means of policy.

Tell me what the U.S. should do in light of NK's recent bomb threats and nuclear weapons testing? Nothing? More useless sanctions? "Anything that's not war because war is bad"?

 

[Lightbringer]

Lefty sources saying we shouldn't attack NK? Didn't see that coming. I could provide 5x articles from conservative sources saying we should attack NK, but I don't think you'd have fun reading page after page of biased media.

"Wiping out South Korea and parts of China?" Do you think the only form of military action the U.S. has in it's arsenal is dropping a nuke? Precise air strikes? Naval force? Drones? Reconnaissance? Raid operations? That all goes out the window because a nuke is the only possible answer to handling NK? Be real. NK is only now advancing beyond the era of Soviet Russian, Vietnam war military grade weaponry. The only threat, and the only reason why the United States giving NK the time of day is because of their expansion into second generation nuclear weapons. If we take out Kim's regime before they finalize development on their hydrogen bombs, then they pose no semblance of a threat to the U.S. military.

And how would a preemptive strike before NK drops a nuke in lets say, ex. Osaka, JPN, would lead to more causalities if the end result of an attack from NK would be a counter-strike from the U.S? Counter-strike, meaning after the loss of X million innocents, we would attack NK like we would if it were a preemptive strike, except in this instance NK would be prepared for such an attack and further more our response would be far more aggressive than it would have been if there was not a loss of innocent lives before hand.

"Also whatever happened to being anti-war?" I'm not a progressive who's anti-war, I do not object to the existence of war. The dictionary defines anti-war as “opposed to war in general or to the conduct of a specific war.” I'm aware that to be truly anti-war you must be in favor of actions that neutralizes aggression. I do not believe the will of being against violence will prevent violence. Progressives are anti-war on a sentimental level, I am anti-war on a prescriptive level.

For being "opposed to war" to mean something beyond impotent sentiments, you have to identify the causes of war and take a stand against them. You have to identify the causes of peace and take a stand for them, and in this instance I believe taking out a war-bent, radical, authoritarian, communist regime whose threaten several countries, before it's able to construct a weapon of mass destruction is taking a stand for peace. I believe preemptive strike is what it's going to take to prevent a true nuclear fallout in the case of a counter-attack from the U.S. or any of it's allies, everyone else opposed to such an attack offer NOTHING in terms of a solution aside from active negligence and ineffective means of policy.

Tell me what the U.S. should do in light of NK's recent bomb threats and nuclear weapons testing? Nothing? More useless sanctions? "Anything that's not war because war is bad"?

You have lost your mind. No point in me trying to reason with someone who is willing to risk nuclear war. Your opinion is irrelevant in this matter and simply calling my sources "leftist" and deny them on that basis alone is lazy and very convenient. All sources are biased to an extent, what's important is whether or not they are credible.

You honestly sound just like every warmongering politician and let's not pretend that you have the best interests for the populations at risk in mind. I believe we have nothing more to say to one another, so I'll end my last comment with this quote.

"Fear is like a fire."

 

[kimb]

You have lost your mind. Your opinion is irrelevant. You honestly sound just like every warmongering politician.

"Fear is like a fire."

Edgy quotes, ad homs, moralized grandstanding, and non-arguments; the progressive cream of the crop. All you needed was a bit of virtue signaling and this would been the perfect comment.

I hate progressives. They're easily the least reasonable of all political philosophies from my experience. You lack nuance, your moral and political compass is one dimensional; you're only conclusion for someone being in favor of a preemptive strike could only be insanity or malice. You're incapable of addressing arguments head on which is why you and every other progressive result to pigeonholing and delegitimizing others in intellectually dishonest ways like asserting malice or apathy as their intent. You're tribalistic, your attitude towards political alignment focuses on primarily political uniformity within a give group (tribe) or party which is why you to fail at assessing individuals who do not conform to the 1:1 mold of a group. This is why you come to conclusions like Sam Harris not being a liberal; the progressive Overton window has the center resting somewhere between social democracy and socialism. Lastly, you weird me the **** out. I like to imagine you as a socially inept, morbidly obese NEET who's favorite past time is snacking on dorito crumbs that have fallen between the buttons on your keyboard; that way you don't have to leave your room for food in between thread posts. Honest to god opinion.

And let's be real, my opinion was never relevant to you. No matter how far left I went to find common ground with you on issues, even going beyond the bounds of what I believe in order to get some sort of agreement, it wasn't sufficient. I used to think there was a rational person under all your progressivism that I'd want to respect, but no matter how deep I dug, I only found more progressivism; that and awkward social interactions. You're a 1:1 mold of a progressive, there is no variation between you and the philosophy, there is no individuality or personality that separates you from anyone else under the same label, there is only progressivism.

You have no redeeming qualities.

 

[Multiply]

You have lost your mind. No point in me trying to reason with someone who is willing to risk nuclear war. Your opinion is irrelevant in this matter and simply calling my sources "leftist" and deny them on that basis alone is lazy and very convenient. All sources are biased to an extent, what's important is whether or not they are credible.

You honestly sound just like every warmongering politician and let's not pretend that you have the best interests for the populations at risk in mind. I believe we have nothing more to say to one another, so I'll end my last comment with this quote.

"Fear is like a fire."

Come on bro you got washed. It's obvious we need to preemptively strike NK but timing is key. Like Fiji was saying our only option is not nuclear warfare. I don't think it will happen for a few more months but something will happen and we will go to war. Would you rather them strike SK or Japan and millions die or we attack NK and thousands(If that) die? War at this point is inevitable because of how the diplomacy was handled. And considering President Trump isn't going anywhere anytime soon, I don't think he'll control himself enough to deescalate the situation.

Edgy quotes, ad homs, moralized grandstanding, and non-arguments; the progressive cream of the crop. All you needed was a bit of virtue signaling and this would been the perfect comment.

I hate progressives. They're easily the least reasonable of all political philosophies from my experience. You lack nuance, your moral and political compass is one dimensional; you're only conclusion for someone being in favor of a preemptive strike could only be insanity or malice. You're incapable of addressing arguments head on which is why you and every other progressive result to pigeonholing and delegitimizing others in intellectually dishonest ways like asserting malice or apathy as their intent. You're tribalistic, your attitude towards political alignment focuses on primarily political uniformity within a give group (tribe) or party which is why you to fail at assessing individuals who do not conform to the 1:1 mold of a group. This is why you come to conclusions like Sam Harris not being a liberal; the progressive Overton window has the center resting somewhere between social democracy and socialism. Lastly, you weird me the **** out. I like to imagine you as a socially inept, morbidly obese NEET who's favorite past time is snacking on dorito crumbs that have fallen between the buttons on your keyboard; that way you don't have to leave your room for food in between thread posts. Honest to god opinion.

And let's be real, my opinion was never relevant to you. No matter how far left I went to find common ground with you on issues, even going beyond the bounds of what I believe in order to get some sort of agreement, it wasn't sufficient. I used to think there was a rational person under all your progressivism that I'd want to respect, but no matter how deep I dug, I only found more progressivism; that and awkward social interactions. You're a 1:1 mold of a progressive, there is no variation between you and the philosophy, there is no individuality or personality that separates you from anyone else under the same label, there is only progressivism.

You have no redeeming qualities.

You sound so hurt right now. Are you okay? Do you need a shoulder to cry on?

 

[kimb]

You sound so hurt right now. Are you okay? Do you need a shoulder to cry on?

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

 

[Multiply]

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

 

[demon of the leaf]

I am trying to make sense of your rationale. So you think it's wise to provoke an unstable leader?

If you want to avoid full scale war, escalation would be the last thing you'd want to do.





But he hasn't unless we give him a reason to. It sounds like you're implying that you're in favor of simply preemptively striking North Korea rather than just act in self-defense?





But that is an objectively wrong opinion since all that Trump's rhetoric did was stir the hornet's nest. Like I've mentioned in my previous comment; Trump's previous threat to North Korea was ignored and responded by shooting missiles over Japan.

Now North Korea is responding by saying that they're planning to test a Hydrogen bomb within our atmosphere, when that hasn't been done in over 35 years. It's unprecedented.

Trump's rhetoric only made the situation with North Korea worse than it already was. What exactly was accomplished?


@Bold: Are you saying that both Obama and Hillary are more morally bankrupt and dishonest than Trump?





Never said anything about an olive branch. There's always going to be hostile nations, but that's not the cause for initiating regime change.

And north korea has been threatening the usa for how long with a nuke since 2015 lets look at how playing nice with crazies like un throught history let me start with our most famous dictator your chancellor
Adolf hitler didnt britains chamberland try playing nice and the result

Hitler conquired all of Europe minus switzerland spain and britain

Stalin took all of eastern europe and used them as buffer states

Putin marched in and took crimea

 

[demon of the leaf]

You have lost your mind. No point in me trying to reason with someone who is willing to risk nuclear war. Your opinion is irrelevant in this matter and simply calling my sources "leftist" and deny them on that basis alone is lazy and very convenient. All sources are biased to an extent, what's important is whether or not they are credible.

You honestly sound just like every warmongering politician and let's not pretend that you have the best interests for the populations at risk in mind. I believe we have nothing more to say to one another, so I'll end my last comment with this quote.

"Fear is like a fire."

Light bringer war became inevitable the moment north korea detonated the first nuke and putin invading crimea Ukraine you seeing the pattern here if not i urge you to read what happened before world war 2 the world is going to war again Ukraine was just the start now the fuse is slowly being lit

 

[Lightbringer]

Light bringer war became inevitable the moment north korea detonated the first nuke and putin invading crimea Ukraine you seeing the pattern here if not i urge you to read what happened before world war 2 the world is going to war again Ukraine was just the start now the fuse is slowly being lit

Can you get off my d*ck please? There are other people on NB you know?

 

[demon of the leaf]

Can you get off my d*ck please? There are other people on NB you know?

Your the loudest voice here and you tend to post and i do talk to other nb members by the way i just get around fast you aint special by any means

 

[Lightbringer]

Your the loudest voice here and you tend to post and i do talk to other nb members by the way i just get around fast you aint special by any means

You've been stalking all of my posts. Not one member comes as close as to how much inbox I get from you.

Not to mention that the majority of your replies are just half-assed points and insults.

And if you really want me to take you seriously, then fix your grammar and spelling first. Seriously reread your comment and tell me why I should take you seriously? It doesn't even make sense. It's not a complete thought and doesn't even include the most basic grammatical principle, which is a period at the end of a sentence.

You think you're making good points, but your points make absolutely no sense. They're illegible and not comprehensive in any capacity. Why do you think I don't reply to most of them?


Put some actual effort and research into your replies and start making constructive arguments and not just sentence-long remarks that are solely based off of your opinion.

 

[demon of the leaf]

You've been stalking all of my posts. Not one member comes as close as to how much inbox I get from you.

Not to mention that the majority of your replies are just half-assed points and insults.

And if you really want me to take you seriously, then fix your grammar and spelling first. Seriously reread your comment and tell me why I should take you seriously? It doesn't even make sense. It's not a complete thought and doesn't even include the most basic grammatical principle, which is a period at the end of a sentence.

You think you're making good points, but your points make absolutely no sense. They're illegible and not comprehensive in any capacity. Why do you think I don't reply to most of them?


Put some actual effort and research into your replies and start making constructive arguments and not just sentence-long remarks that are solely based off of your opinion.

I have a very great reading comprehension and i put in as much effort as i can with a phone and i understand history very well so pardon me that i dont notice all words given that the screen drifts to the left to where i cant see and i havnt insulted you on this thread or the last thread the with the end of the world crap was an observation so the only one throwing insults is you saying that im riding your **** is a teenage insult maybe even gradeschool at best but i will be the bigger person here and you obviously didnt read my post cause i did state a fact