Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 5 of 83 FirstFirst ... 345671555 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 1233
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    32,276
    Quote Originally Posted by Lil Rhody View Post
    Well good thing I watched all my sports teams win a ship before I die
    That's not funny


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    10,399
    The fact that Trump has no military record & is being this aggressive

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    40,241
    Trump has to look aggressive, and being weak to NK is even worse. You're just enabling them to continue firing off missiles for a show of force. Mattis is being aggressive, and that's the most significant. Trump talks all this ****, but Mattis is the one behind closed doors talking policy with foreign ministers.

    Can't remember exactly, but Mattis was first to mention "destruction of NK" and then we sent our Navy to Australia and looked like it was headed for NK. Kim was spooked and had the country on state of alarm. We diverted direction and Kim seemed to look weak, and has gotten even worse.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    19,704
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    First Bolded: Unlikely. North Korea has radar and other surveillance and defensive technology that Bin Laden's compound didn't, not to mention Kim is far more heavily guarded and his location is kept a secret to prevent just such a thing from happening.

    Second Bolded: What is this based on? North Korea is not going to attack the US because they know the second they do the US declares war on North Korea and destroys their entire government. Kim is a bad person, but he's not a total idiot. His primary objective is to maintain control of North Korea and stay in power. Attacking the US runs directly counter to his objective and he simply won't do it, no matter how much bluster you choose to believe.
    they did use the word inevitable, but I guess North Korea's words don't matter, just Trump's words matter.






    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    What exactly as Kim done to give the US the authority to assassinate him? He's a piece of **** and done terrible things to the North Korean people but he hasn't done anything to us like it or not. There could be an argument that South Korea has much more moral authority but verbal threats shouldn't be used for removing the head of state of another country.
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    It is very bizarre that whenever liberals propose some sort of peaceful attempt at helping people from another country (such as providing them aid or money, or taking in their refugees) conservatives will say "it's not the US' job to help everybody and we have to take care of Americans first" and then when it comes to proposing a violent action like pre-emptively bombing North Korea they say "look at how terrible a leader he is, millions are dying".

    Like, no, you just said we can't afford to help everybody and we need to take care of Americans first, so you don't get to say it's to help the North Korean people when you didn't want to help the Syrian people, the Iraqi people, etc.
    isn't it a talking point from the left that America should care about other countries. I mean how much *****ing and moaning has there been about the poor refugees from many different countries that deserve to be helped.
    I guess both sides are hypocrites.






    Quote Originally Posted by kevin13697 View Post
    The fact that Trump has no military record & is being this aggressive
    why does this matter? Trump has people around him influencing him that have military experience, and that included Bannon when he was there too.

    the anti-Trump movement seems to be getting dumber

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    24,690
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    they did use the word inevitable, but I guess North Korea's words don't matter, just Trump's words matter.
    They did, except you clearly didn't read the full quote. They said because of Donald Trump, a North Korean attack was inevitable.

    Again, do you support attacking North Korea if they don't attack us first? Yes or No?

    Should we invade them right now?

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    24,690
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    isn't it a talking point from the left that America should care about other countries. I mean how much *****ing and moaning has there been about the poor refugees from many different countries that deserve to be helped.
    I guess both sides are hypocrites.
    Both sides are hypocritical. I'd venture to say in this instance the difference of opinion is the left doesn't think blowing people up really helps them.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    19,704
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    They did, except you clearly didn't read the full quote. They said because of Donald Trump, a North Korean attack was inevitable.

    Again, do you support attacking North Korea if they don't attack us first? Yes or No?

    Should we invade them right now?
    I'm the one who originally posted an article where they used the word inevitable so I'm fully aware of what all they said. they still used the word inevitable, regardless of why.

    America should attempt everything possible before getting to physically attacking them. I don't think everything has been done yet so that process has to continue.

    I don't know right now whether America should attack first because that point hasn't come. one shouldn't make that decision as to saying yes until they absolutely know everything else has been tried.

    the anti-Trump movement seems to be getting dumber

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    24,690
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    I'm the one who originally posted an article where they used the word inevitable so I'm fully aware of what all they said. they still used the word inevitable, regardless of why.

    America should attempt everything possible before getting to physically attacking them. I don't think everything has been done yet so that process has to continue.

    I don't know right now whether America should attack first because that point hasn't come. one shouldn't make that decision as to saying yes until they absolutely know everything else has been tried.
    Essentially, discount the context at which the word inevitable was used.

    How has that point not come? If you truly believe North Korea is absolutely 100% going to attack us because they used the word inevitable how has the point not come where we attack them before they attack us?

    Your opinions suffer from a decided lack of logic.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    24,690
    Here's an article from the Washington Post:

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/...Zpp&ocid=ientp

    Although the threats are colorful — on both sides — experts on North Korea say they are in keeping with North Korea’s history of bluster and do not signal a significant change in North Korea’s thinking.

    “I’m not concerned. North Korea likes colorful rhetoric and they always have,” said Tatiana Gabroussenko, a specialist on North Korean propaganda who teaches at Korea University in Seoul. “The problem now is Mr. Trump. He reacts, he answers, he tweets, so he’s making it visible.”


    Shen Dingli, deputy dean of the Institute of International Affairs at Fudan University in Shanghai, agreed the rhetoric was overblown.

    “All these provocations are verbal,” Shen said, adding that Pyongyang does not want war.

    “North Korea already threatened to attack Guam, but they didn’t. Its artillery can blast Seoul and any of its nuclear weapons could turn northeast Asia upside down. But would they start a war first?” he said. “No, their nuclear weapons are for self-defense, and they are aware the United States will wipe them off from the Earth if they hit it.”

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    23,071
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post







    isn't it a talking point from the left that America should care about other countries. I mean how much *****ing and moaning has there been about the poor refugees from many different countries that deserve to be helped.
    I guess both sides are hypocrites.







    One side is hypocritical because they would rather worry about debt than help others, then at the same time would rather spend money on war to kill people than worry about debt.

    The other is hypocritical because they don't want to spend money on killing others but do want to spend it to help others

    The two sides ain't close to being the same. Please be aware of that

    lol, nice try tho

  11. #71
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    19,704
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Essentially, discount the context at which the word inevitable was used.

    How has that point not come? If you truly believe North Korea is absolutely 100% going to attack us because they used the word inevitable how has the point not come where we attack them before they attack us?

    Your opinions suffer from a decided lack of logic.
    I don't supporting attacking North Korea unless it is a last resort. do everything possible to avoid that by working to get Kim Jong Un to stop. but I don't think attacking NK should be completely ruled out. don't make a red line for them to cross, that's stupid and backs America into a corner. then if NK keeps pushing and passes that "red line" then if America/Trump does nothing it just makes America/Trump look worse. keep all options open.

    Kim Jong Un should not know what Trump might do. as soon as it's said to NK that "we won't attack you" then why would Kim Jong Un stop what he's doing? he would already know that America wont do **** and has no reason to worry. **** that, make him sweat.

    the anti-Trump movement seems to be getting dumber

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    10,399
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    why does this matter? Trump has people around him influencing him that have military experience, and that included Bannon when he was there too.
    how much real influence do you think Bannon had over Trump? That was more of an alliance.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    44,136
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    why does this matter? Trump has people around him influencing him that have military experience, and that included Bannon when he was there too.
    Oh... I thought he was talking about Trump being a 5 time draft dodger. Guys like that an often overcompensate by being overly macho. Plus he's got short hands and fingers, so.....
    I am not a con artist! I am a businessman! I have a big brain and I'm good at making deals! People are just jealous of my BIG BRAIN! BAD!

    Guess who? The future X-Presdent...

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Pittsbruh
    Posts
    70,406
    More doubling down from Trump this past weekend. He said Tillerson was wasting his time.

    Briefly, because it keeps popping up, I want to talk about the Iran deal, and how it relates to North Korea. By all accounts Iran is holding up their end of the deal. We are the only country (and we don't officially say it...our President just likes to remark about it on Twitter) that suggests they aren't. Without getting too much into our Middle East strategy, the deal and our ability to honor it is hugely important for future negotiations. North Korea does not trust us. They instill a fear that we want to wipe them off the map, or at the very least, invade them again, into all of their citizens. They believe it, and lately they have even more reason to. So, if you are fearful of a country and witness said country renege on a deal with another country in similar circumstances, why would you ever seek to negotiate with them ever again? Why would you ever trust them? If our deals are only good while the president that oversaw them in office, what good is our word? It would set a horrible precedent that would undeniably hinder our ability to negotiate similar deals down the road.

    As long as Iran remains in technical compliance, we must honor the deal. Maybe Tillerson is wasting his time, but, again, reneging on this would render a lot of negotiations in the future even more wasteful. Especially with volatile countries like North Korea.
    this my sig

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,026
    NK is preparing to test a missle capable of hitting the west coast and the launch could come as early as this weekend (oct 9th is an holiday for NK and their first ever nuke launch test was on Oct 9th)

Page 5 of 83 FirstFirst ... 345671555 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •