War drum being beat louder than ever

[Glaurung]

Well, the way their missiles are going, maybe they'll blow themselves up trying.

Ideally the regime would implode under itself and either China annexes it and installs its own model on the area or the peninsula is unified under the south. Either way the people of North Korea would see their lives dramatically improve. There's still hope for that if China is no longer inclined to support them economically.

 

[pearl]

As much as I do not enjoy the prospect of the US starting another war (because whenever the US starts fighting Australia inevitably gets involved) I do think something eventually has to be done about North Korea. Sooner or later it has to go, and I'd like it to go before they gain to capability of slapping nukes onto missiles. The more the world waits to deal with it, the worse it is going to be.

The 1959 movie 'On The Beach' comes to mind.
On The Beach - (Original Trailer)

 

[metis]

The approach that the Trump administration is doing has a name: "brinkmanship". But in today's world, especially since nukes could all too easily get involved, this is a very dangerous tactic because one of the parties may jump the gun or there could be an accidental incident.

 

[Revoltingest]

I give up. Generations of movies, TV shows, and morons have convinced Americans that you can solve problems with guns, and all the ***-kicking lessons in the middle haven't shown them that the opposite is actually true. They'll bomb someone shortly.

Actually, you can solve many political problems by killing your foes.
But it can't be done half heartedly....utterly crush them, drive them before you, &....you know.
Of course there are consequential problems....
- Terrorism in retaliation
- Pre-emptive strikes by fearful nations.
- That weak willed, touchy feely, easily broken Americastanian spirit.
- Cost....death....carnage....pestilence....radioactivity....

 

[tytlyf]

Just proves that voting republican is hawkish. Expect more wars, more debt, more spending and another economic collapse. We may have a GWB repeat here.

 

[Revoltingest]

Just proves that voting republican is hawkish. Expect more wars, more debt, more spending and another economic collapse. We may have a GWB repeat here.

You cant decry one as such, without addressing the other.
What does one do when both candidates are hawks?

 

[tytlyf]

What does one do when both candidates are hawks?

In that situation you vote for the least hawkish. Which is usually the opposite of the republican party (given recent history).
People called Clinton a hawk as a reason to not vote for her. You must be really disturbed to see what has happened in the last 100 days concerning hawks. You don't like hawks right?

There really wasn't any evidence of Clinton being hawkish outside RW media telling conservatives that. (they'll mention syria no-fly zone) comment. Which republicans also support. It's a false equivalence.

RW media is dangerous, which is why they're on the 'outs.' The republican establishment has learned that RW media actually hurt them this election.

 

[columbus]

You cant decry one as such, without addressing the other.
What does one do when both candidates are hawks?

Pick the ice queen whose experience and coldly calculating nature are less likely to get the country into a stupid conflict liable to end in global disaster.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

In that situation you vote for the least hawkish. Which is usually the opposite of the republican party (given recent history).
People called Clinton a hawk as a reason to not vote for her. You must be really disturbed to see what has happened in the last 100 days concerning hawks. You don't like hawks right?

There really wasn't any evidence of Clinton being hawkish outside RW media telling conservatives that. (they'll mention syria no-fly zone) comment. Which republicans also support. It's a false equivalence.

RW media is dangerous, which is why they're on the 'outs.' The republican establishment has learned that RW media actually hurt them this election.

Hillary had many indicators of hawkdom.
Many Dems agreed with me on this.
The question....which was worse?

 

[Revoltingest]

Pick the ice queen whose experience and coldly calculating nature are less likely to get the country into a stupid conflict liable to end in global disaster.
Tom

We'd covered this before.
In her cold & calculating mode, she really liked war.
She particularly lusted to "obliterate Iran".
But now she's the peace candidate to lefties?

 

[columbus]

We'd covered this before.
In her cold & calculating mode, she really liked war.
She particularly lusted to "obliterate Iran".
But now she's the peace candidate to lefties?

And you were unusually unconvincing.

I never thought her more peaceful than the USA public. Which is "not very". What I did think was that she would be vastly less likely to start a war inadvertently. Stupidly, without a goal other than ego inflation. I also thought that other players would be less inclined to bait her into something unfortunate for the USA, knowing she has ordered military strikes and will again.

But who knows? You got the candidate you voted for. An ill informed noob who thinks he can run the USA like a rich brat giving orders to the servants. Trump is doing pretty much exactly what I expected.
Tom

 

[metis]

An ill informed noob who thinks he can run the USA like a rich brat giving orders to the servants. Trump is doing pretty much exactly what I expected.

Reminds me of Michael Moore's comment after Trump won the election that, as bad as one might think about what we're going to be in for, it'll be far worse than that. And he was right.

 

[Revoltingest]

And you were unusually unconvincing.

That might be partly due to my lack of intent to convince anyone to change their mind.
Democrats are quite unlikely to acknowledge their chosen one could be worse in any respect.

I never thought her more peaceful than the USA public. Which is "not very". What I did think was that she would be vastly less likely to start a war inadvertently. Stupidly, without a goal other than ego inflation. I also thought that other players would be less inclined to bait her into something unfortunate for the USA, knowing she has ordered military strikes and will again.

But who knows? You got the candidate you voted for. An ill informed noob who thinks he can run the USA like a rich brat giving orders to the servants. Trump is doing pretty much exactly what I expected.
Tom

I agree that the biggest problem is the public's penchant for war.
If they wanted non-aggressionism, many pols would change their stripes.

 

[columbus]

hat might be partly due to my lack of intent to convince anyone to change their mind.
Democrats are quite unlikely to acknowledge their chosen one could be worse in any respect.

Well, at least we less partisan folks didn't need to resort to false equivalencies all the time to remain unconvincing.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, at least we less partisan folks didn't need to resort to false equivalencies all the time to remain unconvincing.
Tom

They didn't?
Do you know what a "false equivalency" is?
It is saying 2 things are equivalent when they aren't.
It is not the relative evaluation comparison of traits common
(even if differing in flavor or magnitude) to 2 different things.

I've noticed leftish media training their followers to cry "False equivalency!"
reflexively. It often comes up when comparing Pubs & Dems.

Hillary is a hawk with an extensive record to back it up. Donald spoke like
a hawk, but had no political record, making him a less predictable risk.
Twas a judgement call which was worse. I said she is....you said he is.
This is not to claim "equivalence".

 

[esmith]

In that situation you vote for the least hawkish. Which is usually the opposite of the republican party (given recent history).
People called Clinton a hawk as a reason to not vote for her. You must be really disturbed to see what has happened in the last 100 days concerning hawks. You don't like hawks right?

There really wasn't any evidence of Clinton being hawkish outside RW media telling conservatives that. (they'll mention syria no-fly zone) comment. Which republicans also support. It's a false equivalence.

RW media is dangerous, which is why they're on the 'outs.' The republican establishment has learned that RW media actually hurt them this election.

What political party has been responsible for getting the US into armed conflict, say since the end of WWII?

 

[esmith]

Let me ask a very simple/complex question.
What do you think should be done about the North Korean situation, that isn't being attempted at the present time?

 

[averageJOE]

In that situation you vote for the least hawkish. Which is usually the opposite of the republican party (given recent history).
People called Clinton a hawk as a reason to not vote for her. You must be really disturbed to see what has happened in the last 100 days concerning hawks. You don't like hawks right?

There really wasn't any evidence of Clinton being hawkish outside RW media telling conservatives that. (they'll mention syria no-fly zone) comment. Which republicans also support. It's a false equivalence.

RW media is dangerous, which is why they're on the 'outs.' The republican establishment has learned that RW media actually hurt them this election.

Come on now. Hillary was an outright warhawk. She was very vocal about it. Trump, on the other hand, at least he was "smart" enough to lie about what he would do about Syria, because he knew his followers would still support him, and make excuses for him when he flip-flopped.

At 2:07 "I then did promote a no-fly zone, and I still believe we should have done a no-fly zone."
A no-fly zone would have put a green light on shooting down Russian planes. (Could you imagine what would happen if the US even attempted to shoot down a Russian plane?

She would have taken a much bigger military strike on Syria than Trump did, as she clearly says in this video.

 

[tytlyf]

Come on now. Hillary was an outright warhawk. She was very vocal about it. Trump, on the other hand, at least he was "smart" enough to lie about what he would do about Syria, because he knew his followers would still support him, and make excuses for him when he flip-flopped.

At 2:07 "I then did promote a no-fly zone, and I still believe we should have done a no-fly zone."
A no-fly zone would have put a green light on shooting down Russian planes. (Could you imagine what would happen if the US even attempted to shoot down a Russian plane?

She would have taken a much bigger military strike on Syria than Trump did, as she clearly says in this video.

See, that's your only proof. And that wasn't a hawkish statement, it was a 'what if' statement. The republican party is supported by the MIC. The corporations in the MIC use republicans in government to profit. Which is why it's important to understand that voting republican typically leads to more conflicts and war. Certain corporations in America rely heavily on our tax payer dollars to profit off of. The government is a large piggy bank with money up for grabs.

It's all about greed/capitalism to these people. That's why republicans are hawks, it's who they're lobbied by and who they give 'deals' to.

Both parties are different, not even close to being the same. One party supports corporate policy, the other represents the middle class worker. You won't find me voting republican while I'm in the middle class.

 

[tytlyf]

Let me ask a very simple/complex question.
What do you think should be done about the North Korean situation, that isn't being attempted at the present time?

Nothing should be done about NK. Continue doing what they're doing. Ignore them, they're irrelevant. Obama had a good plan.
War drums, hawks, MIC gearing up!