Are we seriously this scared of a country that can't even keep the lights on? 

Am I supposed to believe that our intelligence community hasn't kept up with the goings on and would respond quickly if there was any actual danger?

Why not just cut off all cheese going in there?

Views: 259

Replies to This Discussion

Yeah. I wasn't impressed that he paraphrased a Democrar either.

And his bipartisan-lauded Secretary of War who essentially threatened to end them as a people.

Maybe if he'd engaged in backchannel talks for a few months to try and get them to the table. Or got a unanimous vote at the UN Security Council to pressure them. Or got Russia to publicly state they wouldn't support a nuclear North Korea. Or got China to tell them they're on their own of they start some shit. Maybe if he worked up a coalition of Asian nations to confront them rather than do it unilaterally. That might be more diplomatic I guess.

So what do you think will happen? Assassination? The Island of Korea? Or just a bunch of talk until he dies of a heart attack at age 41?

Many many possible scenarios. But, he did purge the Chinese sympathizers, like his uncle. He may get froggy.

It doesn't matter who is in office.

Kim acted like this when Obama was in office and that guy was the definition of diplomatic. 

That's true to an extent. If T had not gutted the State Department, it might be less of an issue.

Yeah. It's highly important to keep the people who got us into this mess on the payroll.

This is a valid point, not just for policy but in terms of understanding the public.  Some say, no, you need to leave experts in charge.  Others say, you mean the experts who gave us Iraq War 2.0?  The Libya bombing and Benghazi?  The ones who backed the Muslim Brotherhood against al-Sisi?  The ones who gave us ISIS and the migrants surge?  Maybe after a certain amount of horrific failure the term "expert" should no longer apply. It's going to be hard to sell the latter group on the value of seniority in a dept. that's facilitated so much danger and so much suffering.

I can't really argue at historical cock-ups. It's a valid point. However, I cannot imagine that *this* is a better approach, either. We can agree that things were broken, without agreeing that putting a belligerent child in place of them is a good idea.

You can't agree. I'm fine with it. Especially since the one time he took the advice of experts it resulted in a failure.

When was that?


Latest Activity

© 2017   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service