Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2017 7:43 am
There may be nuclear annihilation anyway. I agree entirely on your points about staying out of the middle east and lowering tensions with Russia, and I don't think either of those situations are applicable to the state of NK right now.
But I think it's funny that their threats aren't leveled with the same angry response we get when America makes one. Going further down this line of pacifism, why not neglect to even shoot down their missile, should they decide to fire one at Guam?
Excuse me, but yours is the country with military bases on practically every square inch of the planet. Yours is the country that pretends to be the planet's policeman and moral standard-bearer--the purveyor of all that is good and great in the world (and y'all had better like it, or else).
''Despite recently closing hundreds of bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States still maintains nearly 800 military bases in more than 70 countries and territories abroad—from giant “Little Americas” to small radar facilities. Britain, France and Russia, by contrast, have about 30 foreign bases combined.''
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2017 8:07 am
The whole thing's pathetic. You only have to look online to see how bloodthirsty Americans are so it's no wonder the US does the things it does. A country is only the sum of its people.
bobevenson wrote: ↑Mon Sep 04, 2017 10:04 pm1) Full scale American attack on North Korea to end present regime and establish new regime, or consolidate both North and South Korea with a democratic election.
2) Allow China to take over North Korea by force to become part of China.
Let's look at the Iran deal: Obama agrees to pay Iran millions and millons of American dollars to buy Iran, so Iran will give up its nuclear program which is still in its infancy.
If America attack its old friend Australia how will the world look at America?
If China attacks North Korea with is its old friend, how will the world look at China?
Do you think what I'm saying about a future, more cohesive collusion between china and NK is a stretch, or do you disagree with the principle of being the one to initialize war, even if its to prevent more catastrophic one caused by the other side later on?
Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2017 7:20 pm
That last part was just an oil joke.
My comment was for the rest of it.
Do you think what I'm saying about a future, more cohesive collusion between china and NK is a stretch, or do you disagree with the principle of being the one to initialize war, even if its to prevent more catastrophic one caused by the other side later on?
I think you should go fuck yourself, and take your POS country with you.
Last edited by vegetariantaxidermy on Sat Sep 09, 2017 8:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2017 8:07 pm
My comment was for the rest of it.
Do you think what I'm saying about a future, more cohesive collusion between china and NK is a stretch, or do you disagree with the principle of being the one to initialize war, even if its to prevent more catastrophic one caused by the other side later on?
I think you should go fuck yourself, and take your POS country with you.
Why such the hostility? I'm specifically taking into consideration the neo-conservative mindsets that got us into Iraq and Afghanistan, which we both have warranted concerns about. This isn't even about preventing a future war with NK, because as I stated their power does not warrant a concern. It's about preventing a potential influence on china, a country that currently states that they will continue to back NK in spite of all of its reckless totality and warmongering, save they attack first.
Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2017 8:24 pm
Do you think what I'm saying about a future, more cohesive collusion between china and NK is a stretch, or do you disagree with the principle of being the one to initialize war, even if its to prevent more catastrophic one caused by the other side later on?
I think you should go fuck yourself, and take your POS country with you.
Why such the hostility? I'm specifically taking into consideration the neo-conservative mindsets that got us into Iraq and Afghanistan, which we both have warranted concerns about. This isn't even about preventing a future war with NK, because as I stated their power does not warrant a concern. It's about preventing a potential influence on china, a country that currently states that they will continue to back NK in spite of all of its reckless totality and warmongering, save they attack first.
Like talking to a creationist. There's just no point. Warmonger is a contemptuous term that non-warmongers use. Warmongers don't recognise themselves because they see nothing wrong with it. I'm hardly going to start arguing yank 'military strategy' now am I?
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2017 8:48 pm
I think you should go fuck yourself, and take your POS country with you.
Why such the hostility? I'm specifically taking into consideration the neo-conservative mindsets that got us into Iraq and Afghanistan, which we both have warranted concerns about. This isn't even about preventing a future war with NK, because as I stated their power does not warrant a concern. It's about preventing a potential influence on china, a country that currently states that they will continue to back NK in spite of all of its reckless totality and warmongering, save they attack first.
Like talking to a creationist. There's just no point. Warmonger is a contemptuous term that non-warmongers use. Warmongers don't recognise themselves because they see nothing wrong with it. I'm hardly going to start arguing yank 'military strategy' now am I?
Since you're not in the government nor military, you couldn't successfully argue any strategy.
Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2017 9:51 pm
Why such the hostility? I'm specifically taking into consideration the neo-conservative mindsets that got us into Iraq and Afghanistan, which we both have warranted concerns about. This isn't even about preventing a future war with NK, because as I stated their power does not warrant a concern. It's about preventing a potential influence on china, a country that currently states that they will continue to back NK in spite of all of its reckless totality and warmongering, save they attack first.
Like talking to a creationist. There's just no point. Warmonger is a contemptuous term that non-warmongers use. Warmongers don't recognise themselves because they see nothing wrong with it. I'm hardly going to start arguing yank 'military strategy' now am I?
Since you're not in the government nor military, you couldn't successfully argue any strategy.