not meant to be political.But they launched another misslle and UN security council has asked the world to cut off all diplomatic, commercial, and all other ties to the country. Are we on the brink of war? Where does this go?
You can't just write off 51 million South Koreans as collateral damage. For all their bluster about nuking another continent, if NK felt like they were down to their last card, I'm pretty sure NK would obliterate SK, and nobody would be able to stop it.
dont think so. There are simple diplomatic solutions available. For example, recognizing North Korea and agreeing to stop military excercises in exchange for allowing the UN to dismantle the program.
Both sides use this crisis to divert domestic attention from robbing their populations. Kim Jung blatant robbery and In Trumps case tax cuts for the rich funded by the poor and middle class.
Kim Jung is animal but he just wants to know him and his cronies can rob his people perpetually. A nuke achieves that protection.
We're still technically at war. There's just an armistice in place.
Will anyone start a shooting war? Doubtful. Both sides know what the outcome would be and it's not good for anyone.
Kim is not going to give up. He'll make his brainwashed citizens eat dirt before he gives up his nuclear program.
All you have to do is look at the parasites found in the digestive system of the DPRK Army defector. If the army isn't well-fed, think about the state of the population outside of Pyongyang.
Where does this go? Beats me. I don't see the ROK and the USA giving up the military exercises and Kim won't stop.
dont think so. There are simple diplomatic solutions available. For example, recognizing North Korea and agreeing to stop military excercises in exchange for allowing the UN to dismantle the program.
Both sides use this crisis to divert domestic attention from robbing their populations. Kim Jung blatant robbery and In Trumps case tax cuts for the rich funded by the poor and middle class.
Kim Jung is animal but he just wants to know him and his cronies can rob his people perpetually. A nuke achieves that protection.
Easy solutions if either leader wanted it.
A) You would allow NK to dictate the terms of security in the Asian Pacific by halting military exercises? I’m sure SK, Japan, and the rest of our allies would be thrilled....not to mention our own economic interests. Are you part of the Chinese politburo?
B) Even if the US did agree to the concessions you list, why would that deter Kim? Do you think he trusts the US to keep its word knowing full well that our leadership turns over within each decade? Nope. Kim wants the ability to tactically strike the US mainland with nukes because, in his opinion, is is a much more enduring guarentee of his livelihood
C) Your tax comments are cute. Even the CBO, which has historically stumbled when projecting impacts of tax cuts (they severely underestimated the tax revenues and growth projections of the Bush cuts), estimates that those earning $100k-$200k enjoy the largest benefits from the proposed reforms. The narrative that the poor would suffer are spurious as the standard deduction doubles and the individual mandate disproportionately affects lower income individuals. I won’t dig much deeper into this because it gets too political but you can read the CBO report yourself.
I wouldn’t say that many hands have dealt with this situation in a skilled manner in quite some time, and that’s across party lines. I believe a former politician recently made a plea for China and the US to ease up on NK, because that’s worked swimmingly in the past.
I wouldn’t say that many hands have dealt with this situation in a skilled manner in quite some time, and that’s across party lines. I believe a former politician recently made a plea for China and the US to ease up on NK, because that’s worked swimmingly in the past.
that a hot war with North Korea is inevitable. Only question is, will it be on Kim's terms, or ours?
What does this mean?
Doesn't matter whose terms a shooting war is on. The outcome will be the same: the DPRK will cease to exist and the ROK will pay a heavy price.
It's almost certainly wishful thinking to assume the risk and amount of collateral damage will be the same, no matter how long we wait to engage the DPRK.
insofar as any move by us causes extreme loss of South Korean lives. NK is expanding the mutually assured destruction possibility to mainland US, which sucks, but I'm not sure there's an answer. I'm not willing to risk 100,000 innocent SK lives for there to be one fewer maniac who wants us all dead.
It's not just North and South Koreans at risk here Â
And those are just the military personnel. There are over 150,000 American civilians and over 1,000,000 Chinese civilians.
Was just going to make the same point. Plus plenty of expats from our allies (UK, Australia). South Korea is of course also a great ally of ours, and I hate to see innocent people from any country die en masse.
Based on their census there are 25 million people in the greater metro Seoul area. That's right in range of artillery fire from NK...you would lose millions in a day, assuming we don't do some sort of evacuation, which is as good as saying, "we're coming". This would be a catastrophe of the highest magnitude.
is it not found ironic that we invaded their country, killed a couple million of their people, used nuclear weapons against their neighbor Japan (killing another half million, and counting), and currently surround their borders with state-of-the-art nukes, but now we insist that they're the threat, they're the rogue state and the global menace that must be contained. No, we just skip that part...
of course this thread will be deleted now, because someone just questioned the groupthink narrative of those who run this site. It's not political until someone does that, apparently.
RE: Not sure why your estimates on number of lives lost is so low... Â
Based on their census there are 25 million people in the greater metro Seoul area. That's right in range of artillery fire from NK...you would lose millions in a day, assuming we don't do some sort of evacuation, which is as good as saying, "we're coming". This would be a catastrophe of the highest magnitude.
Yeah, Mike from SI's casualty estimate of 100,000 South Korean lives is way low. "millions" might be high. Let's just say a lot of us (and I'm 35 miles from the DMZ) are going to die.
Mark C: your posts are not lost on me. I fully understand the DPRK's position. I'm not saying I agree with it, however.
I don't think your posts are grounds for deletion.
Based on their census there are 25 million people in the greater metro Seoul area. That's right in range of artillery fire from NK...you would lose millions in a day, assuming we don't do some sort of evacuation, which is as good as saying, "we're coming". This would be a catastrophe of the highest magnitude.
Yeah, Mike from SI's casualty estimate of 100,000 South Korean lives is way low. "millions" might be high. Let's just say a lot of us (and I'm 35 miles from the DMZ) are going to die.
Mark C: your posts are not lost on me. I fully understand the DPRK's position. I'm not saying I agree with it, however.
I don't think your posts are grounds for deletion.
My bad. I was trying to avoid hyperbole but apparently went too far the other way. In any event, stay safe. I pray for Mattis and McMaster sometimes.
RE: We're already at mutually assured destruction Â
insofar as any move by us causes extreme loss of South Korean lives. NK is expanding the mutually assured destruction possibility to mainland US, which sucks, but I'm not sure there's an answer. I'm not willing to risk 100,000 innocent SK lives for there to be one fewer maniac who wants us all dead.
The 2018 Winter Olympics are being held in South Korea. It's scary to think how close athletes from all over the world will be to North Korea & this crazy man!
That for all the money we've invested in ballistic missile defense we are afraid to try and shoot down one of their missile test because we aren't sure our systems will work correctly. It certainly does reveal the limits of US power.
dont think so. There are simple diplomatic solutions available. For example, recognizing North Korea and agreeing to stop military excercises in exchange for allowing the UN to dismantle the program.
Both sides use this crisis to divert domestic attention from robbing their populations. Kim Jung blatant robbery and In Trumps case tax cuts for the rich funded by the poor and middle class.
Kim Jung is animal but he just wants to know him and his cronies can rob his people perpetually. A nuke achieves that protection.
Easy solutions if either leader wanted it.
Dont take this the wrong way but you're a fucking idiot...
I think the counter battery ability of us/rok forces is Â
Being underestimated - how maybe salvos can nk launch before the launch point is triangulated and receiving return fire? Anything fixed we probably already know about.
Regardless, any military conflict means mass civilian casualties. I wonder what coup potential we have there, to install a more moderate person capable of greater liberalization. No easy answers.
is it not found ironic that we invaded their country, killed a couple million of their people, used nuclear weapons against their neighbor Japan (killing another half million, and counting), and currently surround their borders with state-of-the-art nukes, but now we insist that they're the threat, they're the rogue state and the global menace that must be contained. No, we just skip that part...
Great Post - wrong in every point.
1.) We invaded their country? When did that happen? Did you forget the part where NK had the ROK and US Armies surrounded in a pocket around Busan? They invaded ROK.
2.)The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed about 80 k each and saved at least 2-5 million civilians from our final invasion had Hirohito not ended the war. Estimates for US casualties range between 250-500k dead an 500 k to 1 million wounded had we invaded the Home Islands. We "only" had 480,000 killed in all of WW2 in both theaters. So more would have died in the battle of Japan than in the rest of the war...
3.) We "surround" their borders because they have been testing nukes and missiles in violation of the UN. They have also splashed their missiles in Japanese EEZ waters and fired them over Japanese Islands - technically an act of war when you fire ballistic missiles into somebody else's territory.
4.) Kim Jong Un threaten to shoot missiles at Guam or Hawaii or did you miss that, too.
I was going to go with it fits on a list of "America is the Great Satan" bullet points because that's kind of who he is. But your point at least has some rationality.
and guess that he means that since we used nukes on Japan, the north believes we wouldn't hesitate to use them on North Korea.
We need to remember that this hermit kingdom has been brainwashing its citizens with these ideas for over 60 years.
Given the tenor of the post I think it was another cheap shot that we are the only country to have used them. We did. It ended a war.
But I agree with the brainwashing part. But does Kim Jong Un believe it? Seems the only people brainwashed would be the ordinary citizen to keep them quiet. I think he is afraid of being overthrown, so he threatens everyone with a nuke to keep him in power.
have a pretty significant black market of phones. They can see what its like out in the world, thats why people defect. I just think they're scared shitless to make a move. Kim sets dogs on his own family, he'd have 0 compunction taking yours out. Add a gestapo like secret police presence and you've got citizens basically waiting in fear, hoping for a better outcome.
somebody said, the Chinese are the key. They have been reluctant to act because NK is a trading partner. They are also afraid of millions of NK refugees pouring over their common border. But they have been getting tougher lately. Any war would cost hundreds of thousands of lives.
He’s living the high life getting huge worldwide media attention, playing NBA 2K, gorging 24/7. Why the hell would Fearless Eater give up such a sweet gig only to be reduced to ash? Forget the tweeter in chief for a moment, because he doesn’t remotely help the optics, but purely from Un’s perspective, why do it?
somebody said, the Chinese are the key. They have been reluctant to act because NK is a trading partner. They are also afraid of millions of NK refugees pouring over their common border. But they have been getting tougher lately. Any war would cost hundreds of thousands of lives.
My personal opinion is that President Xi wants the U.S. to back off fighting against the Chinese expansion in the South China Sea. They are using NK as a bargaining chip to get our "backing" on the "sea grab."
dont think so. There are simple diplomatic solutions available. For example, recognizing North Korea and agreeing to stop military excercises in exchange for allowing the UN to dismantle the program.
Both sides use this crisis to divert domestic attention from robbing their populations. Kim Jung blatant robbery and In Trumps case tax cuts for the rich funded by the poor and middle class.
Kim Jung is animal but he just wants to know him and his cronies can rob his people perpetually. A nuke achieves that protection.
Easy solutions if either leader wanted it.
A) You would allow NK to dictate the terms of security in the Asian Pacific by halting military exercises? I’m sure SK, Japan, and the rest of our allies would be thrilled....not to mention our own economic interests. Are you part of the Chinese politburo?
B) Even if the US did agree to the concessions you list, why would that deter Kim? Do you think he trusts the US to keep its word knowing full well that our leadership turns over within each decade? Nope. Kim wants the ability to tactically strike the US mainland with nukes because, in his opinion, is is a much more enduring guarentee of his livelihood
C) Your tax comments are cute. Even the CBO, which has historically stumbled when projecting impacts of tax cuts (they severely underestimated the tax revenues and growth projections of the Bush cuts), estimates that those earning $100k-$200k enjoy the largest benefits from the proposed reforms. The narrative that the poor would suffer are spurious as the standard deduction doubles and the individual mandate disproportionately affects lower income individuals. I won’t dig much deeper into this because it gets too political but you can read the CBO report yourself.
On A and B I said nothing of the sort.
On the tax side, first and most importantly I respect your opinion. Thanks for sharing it.
What you wrote about the tax plan, however, is such a deviation from reality, that I will not discuss it further, except to say, every analysis of it overwhelmingly shows that it benefits virtually soley the top 1 percent.
The CBO report, and all other outside analysis quite convincingly show it will crumble the poor. In fact, republicans in support of the bill have been quite blunt about it.
"The Congressional Budget Office's analysis of the Senate GOP tax plan shows it would hurt Americans earning less than $30,000, The Washington Post reports, and it would hurt them more than originally thought"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/11/26/senate-gop-tax-bill-hurts-the-poor-more-than-originally-thought-cbo-finds/?utm_term=.eaa7b016065b
Maybe we live in alternate realities?
The CBO underreported the growth from Bush Tax cuts? That statement highlights your partisan and not really worth discussing with until your willing to look at it in a clear lens.
Releasing the individ mandate ill drive health care prices as much as 46% on everyone.
Repealing the estate tax only helps the richest 5000 families.
As the debt rises more cuts will be coming to medicare and medicaid.
If you dont think this is about a transfer of wealth to the rich you are kidding yourself. In fact, the theory behind the tax cuts producing growth is based on that premise.
China’s done more recently than they had for years... Â
Brinksmanship isn’t necessarily limited to NK and the US in this equation, rather Xi needs to believe that the US is seriously considering military action that would destabilize his world. Bombastic rhetoric, additional exercises, and three carriers in close proximity does just that.
There’s been chatter that the Chinese are fearful that they have less leverage these days than they had in the past but they still control petrol inflows and account for 90% of known trade. In fact, the NK economy had enjoyed quite a boom last year, largely via trade.....unfortunate for us.
is it not found ironic that we invaded their country, killed a couple million of their people, used nuclear weapons against their neighbor Japan (killing another half million, and counting), and currently surround their borders with state-of-the-art nukes, but now we insist that they're the threat, they're the rogue state and the global menace that must be contained. No, we just skip that part...
Great Post - wrong in every point.
1.) We invaded their country? When did that happen? Did you forget the part where NK had the ROK and US Armies surrounded in a pocket around Busan? They invaded ROK.
2.)The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed about 80 k each and saved at least 2-5 million civilians from our final invasion had Hirohito not ended the war. Estimates for US casualties range between 250-500k dead an 500 k to 1 million wounded had we invaded the Home Islands. We "only" had 480,000 killed in all of WW2 in both theaters. So more would have died in the battle of Japan than in the rest of the war...
3.) We "surround" their borders because they have been testing nukes and missiles in violation of the UN. They have also splashed their missiles in Japanese EEZ waters and fired them over Japanese Islands - technically an act of war when you fire ballistic missiles into somebody else's territory.
4.) Kim Jong Un threaten to shoot missiles at Guam or Hawaii or did you miss that, too.
I agree with some of this.
But technically we did invade North Korea since the leader we backed in south Korea for 30 plus years was a dictator and thus didn't have consent of the governed. So in some sense we invaded.
The US has been surrounding Korea for 50 years as part of the COld war. The recent events regarding their nukes is not why we initially surrounded their country. We surround borders of the entire world to maintain the post-WW 2 order. One can argue thats imperialism and one can argue its the only way for the world to stay stable. Either way, it is for our self-interest and not for the reasons you mentioned.
Again, while we focus on Korea, the New Deal is about to be destroyed.
Kim's a fuck. But not suicidal. Well be fine.
Lets also be clear on this, neither leader is acting sane.
It seems you are a bit to passionate here and thus likely blinding yourself to some of whats going on.
Both sides use this crisis to divert domestic attention from robbing their populations. Kim Jung blatant robbery and In Trumps case tax cuts for the rich funded by the poor and middle class.
Kim Jung is animal but he just wants to know him and his cronies can rob his people perpetually. A nuke achieves that protection.
Easy solutions if either leader wanted it.
He suggested dropping thousand of iPhones with internet all over the country. Maybe people will want to get away from all the lies.
Will anyone start a shooting war? Doubtful. Both sides know what the outcome would be and it's not good for anyone.
Kim is not going to give up. He'll make his brainwashed citizens eat dirt before he gives up his nuclear program.
All you have to do is look at the parasites found in the digestive system of the DPRK Army defector. If the army isn't well-fed, think about the state of the population outside of Pyongyang.
Where does this go? Beats me. I don't see the ROK and the USA giving up the military exercises and Kim won't stop.
If the shit does hit the fan, so long, guys.
He suggested dropping thousand of iPhones with internet all over the country. Maybe people will want to get away from all the lies.
Forcing thousands of North Koreans to deal with Verizon's customer service will surely start a hot war.
Both sides use this crisis to divert domestic attention from robbing their populations. Kim Jung blatant robbery and In Trumps case tax cuts for the rich funded by the poor and middle class.
Kim Jung is animal but he just wants to know him and his cronies can rob his people perpetually. A nuke achieves that protection.
Easy solutions if either leader wanted it.
A) You would allow NK to dictate the terms of security in the Asian Pacific by halting military exercises? I’m sure SK, Japan, and the rest of our allies would be thrilled....not to mention our own economic interests. Are you part of the Chinese politburo?
B) Even if the US did agree to the concessions you list, why would that deter Kim? Do you think he trusts the US to keep its word knowing full well that our leadership turns over within each decade? Nope. Kim wants the ability to tactically strike the US mainland with nukes because, in his opinion, is is a much more enduring guarentee of his livelihood
C) Your tax comments are cute. Even the CBO, which has historically stumbled when projecting impacts of tax cuts (they severely underestimated the tax revenues and growth projections of the Bush cuts), estimates that those earning $100k-$200k enjoy the largest benefits from the proposed reforms. The narrative that the poor would suffer are spurious as the standard deduction doubles and the individual mandate disproportionately affects lower income individuals. I won’t dig much deeper into this because it gets too political but you can read the CBO report yourself.
I wouldn’t say that many hands have dealt with this situation in a skilled manner in quite some time, and that’s across party lines. I believe a former politician recently made a plea for China and the US to ease up on NK, because that’s worked swimmingly in the past.
Quote:
We're in good hands.
I wouldn’t say that many hands have dealt with this situation in a skilled manner in quite some time, and that’s across party lines. I believe a former politician recently made a plea for China and the US to ease up on NK, because that’s worked swimmingly in the past.
Wrong. Sad!
What does this mean?
Doesn't matter whose terms a shooting war is on. The outcome will be the same: the DPRK will cease to exist and the ROK will pay a heavy price.
lol - some truth to that ...
Quote:
that a hot war with North Korea is inevitable. Only question is, will it be on Kim's terms, or ours?
What does this mean?
Doesn't matter whose terms a shooting war is on. The outcome will be the same: the DPRK will cease to exist and the ROK will pay a heavy price.
It's almost certainly wishful thinking to assume the risk and amount of collateral damage will be the same, no matter how long we wait to engage the DPRK.
The DPRK will be annihilated and the ROK will be decimated.
Neither is good.
And those are just the military personnel. There are over 150,000 American civilians and over 1,000,000 Chinese civilians.
You know for a fact they're in the ROK.
Quote:
We have 30+K of own there
And those are just the military personnel. There are over 150,000 American civilians and over 1,000,000 Chinese civilians.
Was just going to make the same point. Plus plenty of expats from our allies (UK, Australia). South Korea is of course also a great ally of ours, and I hate to see innocent people from any country die en masse.
Yeah, Mike from SI's casualty estimate of 100,000 South Korean lives is way low. "millions" might be high. Let's just say a lot of us (and I'm 35 miles from the DMZ) are going to die.
Mark C: your posts are not lost on me. I fully understand the DPRK's position. I'm not saying I agree with it, however.
I don't think your posts are grounds for deletion.
{:-)
Quote:
Based on their census there are 25 million people in the greater metro Seoul area. That's right in range of artillery fire from NK...you would lose millions in a day, assuming we don't do some sort of evacuation, which is as good as saying, "we're coming". This would be a catastrophe of the highest magnitude.
Yeah, Mike from SI's casualty estimate of 100,000 South Korean lives is way low. "millions" might be high. Let's just say a lot of us (and I'm 35 miles from the DMZ) are going to die.
Mark C: your posts are not lost on me. I fully understand the DPRK's position. I'm not saying I agree with it, however.
I don't think your posts are grounds for deletion.
My bad. I was trying to avoid hyperbole but apparently went too far the other way. In any event, stay safe. I pray for Mattis and McMaster sometimes.
The 2018 Winter Olympics are being held in South Korea. It's scary to think how close athletes from all over the world will be to North Korea & this crazy man!
Do you think if the US took out Kim and replaced him, there would be condemnation from the world?
Both sides use this crisis to divert domestic attention from robbing their populations. Kim Jung blatant robbery and In Trumps case tax cuts for the rich funded by the poor and middle class.
Kim Jung is animal but he just wants to know him and his cronies can rob his people perpetually. A nuke achieves that protection.
Easy solutions if either leader wanted it.
Dont take this the wrong way but you're a fucking idiot...
Regardless, any military conflict means mass civilian casualties. I wonder what coup potential we have there, to install a more moderate person capable of greater liberalization. No easy answers.
LOL.
Great Post - wrong in every point.
1.) We invaded their country? When did that happen? Did you forget the part where NK had the ROK and US Armies surrounded in a pocket around Busan? They invaded ROK.
2.)The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed about 80 k each and saved at least 2-5 million civilians from our final invasion had Hirohito not ended the war. Estimates for US casualties range between 250-500k dead an 500 k to 1 million wounded had we invaded the Home Islands. We "only" had 480,000 killed in all of WW2 in both theaters. So more would have died in the battle of Japan than in the rest of the war...
3.) We "surround" their borders because they have been testing nukes and missiles in violation of the UN. They have also splashed their missiles in Japanese EEZ waters and fired them over Japanese Islands - technically an act of war when you fire ballistic missiles into somebody else's territory.
4.) Kim Jong Un threaten to shoot missiles at Guam or Hawaii or did you miss that, too.
We need to remember that this hermit kingdom has been brainwashing its citizens with these ideas for over 60 years.
We need to remember that this hermit kingdom has been brainwashing its citizens with these ideas for over 60 years.
Given the tenor of the post I think it was another cheap shot that we are the only country to have used them. We did. It ended a war.
But I agree with the brainwashing part. But does Kim Jong Un believe it? Seems the only people brainwashed would be the ordinary citizen to keep them quiet. I think he is afraid of being overthrown, so he threatens everyone with a nuke to keep him in power.
My personal opinion is that President Xi wants the U.S. to back off fighting against the Chinese expansion in the South China Sea. They are using NK as a bargaining chip to get our "backing" on the "sea grab."
Quote:
dont think so. There are simple diplomatic solutions available. For example, recognizing North Korea and agreeing to stop military excercises in exchange for allowing the UN to dismantle the program.
Both sides use this crisis to divert domestic attention from robbing their populations. Kim Jung blatant robbery and In Trumps case tax cuts for the rich funded by the poor and middle class.
Kim Jung is animal but he just wants to know him and his cronies can rob his people perpetually. A nuke achieves that protection.
Easy solutions if either leader wanted it.
A) You would allow NK to dictate the terms of security in the Asian Pacific by halting military exercises? I’m sure SK, Japan, and the rest of our allies would be thrilled....not to mention our own economic interests. Are you part of the Chinese politburo?
B) Even if the US did agree to the concessions you list, why would that deter Kim? Do you think he trusts the US to keep its word knowing full well that our leadership turns over within each decade? Nope. Kim wants the ability to tactically strike the US mainland with nukes because, in his opinion, is is a much more enduring guarentee of his livelihood
C) Your tax comments are cute. Even the CBO, which has historically stumbled when projecting impacts of tax cuts (they severely underestimated the tax revenues and growth projections of the Bush cuts), estimates that those earning $100k-$200k enjoy the largest benefits from the proposed reforms. The narrative that the poor would suffer are spurious as the standard deduction doubles and the individual mandate disproportionately affects lower income individuals. I won’t dig much deeper into this because it gets too political but you can read the CBO report yourself.
On A and B I said nothing of the sort.
On the tax side, first and most importantly I respect your opinion. Thanks for sharing it.
What you wrote about the tax plan, however, is such a deviation from reality, that I will not discuss it further, except to say, every analysis of it overwhelmingly shows that it benefits virtually soley the top 1 percent.
The CBO report, and all other outside analysis quite convincingly show it will crumble the poor. In fact, republicans in support of the bill have been quite blunt about it.
"The Congressional Budget Office's analysis of the Senate GOP tax plan shows it would hurt Americans earning less than $30,000, The Washington Post reports, and it would hurt them more than originally thought"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/11/26/senate-gop-tax-bill-hurts-the-poor-more-than-originally-thought-cbo-finds/?utm_term=.eaa7b016065b
Maybe we live in alternate realities?
The CBO underreported the growth from Bush Tax cuts? That statement highlights your partisan and not really worth discussing with until your willing to look at it in a clear lens.
Releasing the individ mandate ill drive health care prices as much as 46% on everyone.
Repealing the estate tax only helps the richest 5000 families.
As the debt rises more cuts will be coming to medicare and medicaid.
If you dont think this is about a transfer of wealth to the rich you are kidding yourself. In fact, the theory behind the tax cuts producing growth is based on that premise.
There’s been chatter that the Chinese are fearful that they have less leverage these days than they had in the past but they still control petrol inflows and account for 90% of known trade. In fact, the NK economy had enjoyed quite a boom last year, largely via trade.....unfortunate for us.
Quote:
is it not found ironic that we invaded their country, killed a couple million of their people, used nuclear weapons against their neighbor Japan (killing another half million, and counting), and currently surround their borders with state-of-the-art nukes, but now we insist that they're the threat, they're the rogue state and the global menace that must be contained. No, we just skip that part...
Great Post - wrong in every point.
1.) We invaded their country? When did that happen? Did you forget the part where NK had the ROK and US Armies surrounded in a pocket around Busan? They invaded ROK.
2.)The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed about 80 k each and saved at least 2-5 million civilians from our final invasion had Hirohito not ended the war. Estimates for US casualties range between 250-500k dead an 500 k to 1 million wounded had we invaded the Home Islands. We "only" had 480,000 killed in all of WW2 in both theaters. So more would have died in the battle of Japan than in the rest of the war...
3.) We "surround" their borders because they have been testing nukes and missiles in violation of the UN. They have also splashed their missiles in Japanese EEZ waters and fired them over Japanese Islands - technically an act of war when you fire ballistic missiles into somebody else's territory.
4.) Kim Jong Un threaten to shoot missiles at Guam or Hawaii or did you miss that, too.
But technically we did invade North Korea since the leader we backed in south Korea for 30 plus years was a dictator and thus didn't have consent of the governed. So in some sense we invaded.
The US has been surrounding Korea for 50 years as part of the COld war. The recent events regarding their nukes is not why we initially surrounded their country. We surround borders of the entire world to maintain the post-WW 2 order. One can argue thats imperialism and one can argue its the only way for the world to stay stable. Either way, it is for our self-interest and not for the reasons you mentioned.
Again, while we focus on Korea, the New Deal is about to be destroyed.
Kim's a fuck. But not suicidal. Well be fine.
Lets also be clear on this, neither leader is acting sane.
It seems you are a bit to passionate here and thus likely blinding yourself to some of whats going on.