DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Your predictions on imminent US action against North Korea? What do you think?

Well I'm sure we all agree that no war is a good war and war is only to be used as an absolute last resort. I'm also not expert enough about war strategy to state anything with an absolute answer. But my opinion on the matter would be yes.

The reason I feel that way is that N. Korea borders S. Korea which is one of our allies. If we keep our end of the bargain concerning our treaties, I feel that N. Korea would most likely deploy troops into S. Korea. The best figure I could come up with is that we currently have about 28,000 troops stationed in S. Korea.

It all comes down to the actions of N. Korea. If they deploy troops to Japan or S. Korea, I believe it will look a lot like a conventional war.

What we are doing.. position the assets close enough to respond immediately and make damn sure that he knows the second he shows any signs of aggression that all hell with rain down on him.. (And no, I'm not talking about nukes)..

He has to know that his country, with about the population of Florida, can't defeat a major internationally coordinated offensive right? I mean he can tell his people they can but late at night when he lies in bed thinking about it.. he can't possibly believe he can win.... can he?

And I think that is the key.. he has to know that the action against him will be from all sides by a wide range of countries working together..

Personally, I think our military is a bit taxed.. a little fatigued from going at this for a decade and a half now.. I don't want to start another war with NK unless it's the kind that's over in about a week without anybody setting foot on the ground.

That's not going to happen. 'Merica first... our military contractors must make a profit.

Mad Dog Mattis: War With North Korea Would Be Catastrophic.

My Daddy is a Major in the Airforce. He will get Kim...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snTaSJk0n_Y

Your Daddy is Darth Vader?

Sorry hadn't seen the end, your Daddy is the guy who killed himself on the bomb screaming yahoo as he rode it down... Boy your momma must have been hard to live with for him to do that... Or he was just nuts, which explains many things about you.

Major Kong.

wack movie

Cold War Satire.

BAFTA Award for Best Film
1965 · Stanley Kubrick

BAFTA Award for Best British Film
1965 · Stanley Kubrick

Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation
1965 · Stanley Kubrick, Terry Southern, Peter George

BAFTA United Nations Award
1965

Bodil Award for Best American Film
1964 · Stanley Kubrick

BAFTA Award for Best British Art Direction (Black and White)
1965 · Ken Adam

New York Film Critics Circle Award for Best Director
1964 · Stanley Kubrick

Writers Guild of America Award for Best Written Comedy
1965 · Stanley Kubrick, Terry Southern, Peter George

lame

I think it's irresponsible to use words like imminent when it comes to nk, don't fan the flames

Nk is so curious. Their people are isolated like an Amazonian jungle, with the devotion of a Mayan population. North Korea might as well be an island nation separated from humanity.

I tend to say, don't acknowledge people doing wrong. We shouldn't be talking North Korea, because the dictatorship is useless, an antagonist. I do feel for the persecuted people.

tUSA should be more worried about water and energy independence, set the trend

U.S. Calls China One Of The World's Worst Countries On Human Trafficking

https://www.yahoo.com/news/state-department-downgrades-china-annual-162558753.html

So, I posted this here because it raises some questions.

I don't think anybody is surprised with China and it's human trafficking problem. I think the world is well aware of that.

But this report coming out, combined with the tier status dropping, has me wondering if this was a good time to announce this?

We need China if we want to either de-escalate the NK situation, or atleast ensure that China won't flex muscles if we do indeed go with military action.

However true this is, and it's true, part of diplomacy is not trashing a major player in the midst of a crisis, especially when you need that player to be on your team.

IMO, of course.

Pay attention will ya.

Posted this last week.

"While I greatly appreciate the efforts of President Xi & China to help with North Korea, it has not worked out. At least I know China tried!"

-President Donald Trump

So that trumps your post about criticizing China when you want them to work with you. They failed.

How did they fail?

My understanding is we wanted China to limit the help to NK from all the Chinese corporations that are located in NK.

But I am not sure if that was all of the problem.

what was china suppose to do? they aren't gonna hurt their bottom line to take action against a situation that requires no action as of now.

for example, if one of fat boys demands was that the US limit their corporations in south korea, would you expect trump or any other president to comply with that?

no.

Ok.

Build your shelter.

Let's dispense with the terms and call "human trafficking" what it really is.. it's a slave trade, quite frequently it's a sex slave trade... so why would we want anybody with a horrible record of trying to stop it.... "on our team"?

People in this country don't want a high school kid to be allowed to park in the school lot because he has a confederate flag on his car from a war fought over slavery 160 years ago because it's too emotional for them... but now we want China, who is turning a blind eye to modern day slave trade, and we want them on our team because it might benefit us with some other problem we have?

I'm sorry, I'm just not able to jump over enough hurdles to reach that rationalization... as they say on Shark Tank... "So I'm out."

people in this country can say whatever they want about other people in this country.

they can say whatever they want about other people's country, as well.

but we aren't talking about civilians running their mouths crying about something. we are talking about elected/appointed politicians trying to de-escalate a foreign country by keeping diplomatic ties with a major player that we need in order to accomplish the mission.

you're using a false equivalency.

and to further that on, if you ever bought a pair of shoes or clothes that was made overseas, then you have indirectly supported human trafficking.

so we can go down this rabbit hole if you want, but i'm trying to keep this discussion at a government/diplomatic level with regards to the actual topic at hand here. and in this particular case, with this specific discussion, if Trump wants china's help in dealing with NK, this isn't helping.

let the UN or some organization release and do a press conference on the report. but allowing someone in your administration to report this directly while trying to deal with NK isn't exactly a power move.

get out of your feelings about that confederate flag nonsense and actually think about what i'm saying.

Stop with all the worry!

We are a Super Power and NK is a glorified Dink.

Bye Bye number Un.

you should probably chill with the uppity comments and overconfidence when it comes to NK.

a war with them will be ugly. way uglier than fighting some arabs in the desert.

The Arabs fired thousands of missiles at Israel recently and almost all were destroyed in the air by our Iron Dome setup.
Wouldn't be surprised if we built one for the South Koreans too.
Also, since NK is now a Nuke Power, they have to know if you use even one of those things we will use 20.

If Un wants to commit suicide we are eventually gonna have to destroy him anyway.

If it happens:

Do it quick; Make it final; Get our people home.

I think the counter-argument there is that our relationship actually helps us at the bottom line with Seoul. I think we both benefit off of each other, while China is essentially pouring resources into the DPRK to prevent a refugee situation and expansion of a U.S. ally to China's border.

Your counterpoint to that would likely be that, while it may not help China's bottom line, China still has an interest in propping up a buffer country.

It's such a bad situation, man. On one extreme, you have China actually accommodating our demand somehow, sanctioning the DPRK, then the country collapses, and massive refugee crisis ensues. On the other extreme, the U.S. gets involved in yet another military conflict, expends more of its resources, DPRK collapses, and nobody is in a good situation. On a third extreme, you have the DPRK with a nuclear arsenal capable of striking the U.S. mainland. Obviously, none of these are good.

My other concern is that KJU is third generation royalty over there. He spends most of his time getting fat on cheese and wine, and is withdrawn from every day politics and spends most of his time enjoying things. I really feel like he's one of those spoiled rich kids who will do what he wants and nobody can tell him otherwise. That's a dangerous person to have in charge of a nuclear arsenal.

Thought this was an interesting article, for what it's worth:

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/north-korea-apos-kim-jong-153628207.html

" I really feel like he's one of those spoiled rich kids who will do what he wants and nobody can tell him otherwise. That's a dangerous person to have in charge of a nuclear arsenal. "

This article isn't about trump. Let's try to stay focused.

Trump is in his 70's, so he's no longer a kid.

While I completely agree with you, working with "bad guys" and doing anything necessary to achieve our military goals is something ingrained in our history.

Our nation has been a part of the cocaine trade to fund a covert war. After saying we would not deal with terrorist nations we made a pact with Pakistan for the ability to use their military airports to attack the Taliban. We funded Osama Bin Laden against the Russians.

Morality has never been a part of war in our nation. To me this is simply a continuation of that. We will sleep with anyone who helps us achieve our goals.

Much like you, I am certainly not a proponent of it, but that's the reality of it.

Sometimes even people in their 70's can be petulant and childish.

Or in their 50's.

I remember this being a thing during the election season but I have to ask... why? What sense does it make?

He has built a great real estate business, with properties all over the world (properties that almost certainly would not be insurable in the case of war or nuclear attack). That shows responsibility, great planning, and there's even an enormous financial incentive to avoid nuclear attacks.

He also doesn't drink, so any such decision would be made sober. While I don't think there is anything wrong with drinking (I drink sometimes), there is something unnerving about having a tipsy Commander-in-Chief make such an important decision.

What was the reasoning for all of that again? He rants on Twitter sometimes?

Also had many spectacular disasters.

He said mean things sometimes?

Why would Trump having being in charge of the nuclear codes be more dangerous than any of the other Presidential candidates having access to them?

I'd argue there's less risk, due to being a non-drinker and having properties all over the world.

Old Scott Adams post, almost as relevant now as it was 8 months ago. I brought up #5 and #6 (two ideas I may have gotten from him in the first place) but they're all good to post: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152734465316/unhypnotizing-a-clinton-supporter

Today I teach you how to unhypnotize a Clinton supporter.

Keep in mind that the strongest form of persuasion is fear. Clinton’s team of persuaders has convinced her followers that Trump is dangerous. If you remove that part of her spell, Trump wins. Here’s how.

1. Trump’s Tough Talk Inspires violence: Ask Clinton supporters if they have seen the Project Veritas video of Clinton operatives talking about paying people to incite violence at Trump rallies. The people on the video have been fired, and we haven’t seen violence at Trump rallies since.

2. Temperament: Ask Clinton supporters if they have seen the video of Clinton ranting “Why aren’t I already fifty points ahead?” She looks either inebriated or deranged. Mention that the people who know Trump personally have reported that he is both smart and sane in person. Even his enemies who know him personally don’t claim he has a temperament problem. If he did, is there any chance we wouldn’t have heard about it by now?

3. Trump might insult foreign leaders into a war: Trump and Putin seem to get along fine. Netanyahu said he could work with Trump. Mexico isn’t likely to start a war over trade, or the wall. Trump says North Korea is China’s problem, which is literally the safest thing you could say. And China’s leaders are adults who know Trump says offensive things now and then. China will pursue its own interests, and none of those interests involve going to war over some words. Likewise, other leaders are adults too. They won’t change their foreign policy over some insults.

5. Trump might start a war: Trump owns buildings and property around the world. As a general rule, people who own a lot of real estate don’t start wars because their own assets are at risk. But Clinton is “sponsored” – via the Clinton Foundation and speaking fees – by defense companies that profit from war. Likewise, Clinton is sponsored by foreign countries whose interests don’t align with American interests. Clinton supported war in Iraq and Libya, and she threatens Russia, just as the money trail suggests she would. Trump talks mostly about having a strong military to avoid war. He gains nothing by war.

6. Alcohol: Normally alcohol would not be a risk factor in picking a president because usually both candidates are social drinkers. But Trump has never had an alcoholic beverage while Clinton tells us she enjoys social drinking. Having a few social drinks is not a problem unless you plan to drive a car…or make a nuclear launch decision. If we don’t trust a social drinker to operate a motor vehicle, can we trust a social drinker to manage a nuclear arsenal?

If you have ever drunk-texted, or received a text from someone who has, you already know how much “social drinking” can influence decisions.

7. Group Violence versus Crazy Individuals: Have you noticed that when you see election-related violence from a group, it is always Clinton supporters? That happened at Trump’s San Jose rally, and it happened with the homeless woman protecting Trump’s star on the Walk of Fame. When Trump supporters do something violent they are usually acting alone, and crazy. When Clinton supporters get violent it comes in the form of mobs who are NOT crazy. That’s the dangerous kind of violence because they are literally Stronger Together.

8. Pacing and Leading: When normal politicians change their minds we label it flip-flopping or – more kindly – “evolving” in their thinking. When a Master Persuader does it, you are seeing pacing and leading, which is a major tool of persuasion. Pacing involves matching people – in this case emotionally – and later using that bond to lead them. We see Trump doing this often.

a. Trump paced his base by saying he would deport 11 million undocumented immigrants. Once he had his base on his side emotionally, he led to them to his current policy of deporting only the people who committed crimes while here. Have you heard any Trump supporters complain about it lately?

b. Trump paced his base by saying he would ban all Muslim immigration to stop terrorist infiltration. Once he had them on his side emotionally, he led them first to a ban on specific problem countries, and then again to “extreme vetting,” which is a lot like Clinton’s plan. Trump supporters followed, and you don’t hear them complaining.

c. Early in the primaries Trump paced the racists in the Republican party by not disavowing them as clearly and as loudly as even the racists thought he would. Since then he has led Republicans to think that some form of a “New Deal” for African-Americans might be worth a look.

d. At the Republican National Convention, Trump used his emotional connection to his supporters to declare he was the strongest voice to protect the LGBTQ community. Republicans stood and cheered.

Readers of this blog might recall that months ago I predicted that Trump would soften his immigration proposals. That’s because I saw him from the start as a Master Persuader, not a crazy person, and not a common flip-flopper.

In my opinion, Trump might be the safest president we have ever had. He can lead the dark parts of his base toward the light (as Nixon went to China) and he has no incentive for war. Claims about his “temperament” are mostly about his penchant for insults, and that isn’t a mortal danger to anyone.

And there you have your formula for unhypnotizing a Clinton supporter who is mostly worried about Trump being dangerous.

What are you talking about? I was talking about his many spectacular business failures. $3.5b is big, but hardly huge. Also losing so much money in one year is pretty crazy. Look if you can take everything at face value then Trump is for you. However if you're impervious to self branding, you kinda see what Trump is. Just another reality TV star.

Is he worth 3.5 billion? I don't know CHS-- that is pretty huge to me. I would expect there to be some spectacular business failures in there mixed in with the many successes. That's the nature of high-risk ventures.

Chump change.

We have no idea what he's worth because like other presidents, he won't show us.

I'm struggling to understand how being a successful businessman is a qualification for being president?

because if we are gonna use the criteria that running a successful business is a qualifier, then shouldn't number of successful ventures VS flops also be included into that?

so he hit on real estate. are you guys saying that should negate the high number of flops he had?

and since when is being good at real estate = good at running an entire country?

so are you guys saying that if my real estate venture succeeds, i'm qualified to run the country?

i don't understand how running a business for profit relates to civil service, that is non-profit.