US said preparing strike to ‘utterly destroy’ N. Korean nuclear program

Why is it acceptable for the US to threaten countries, but it's not okay for those countries to threaten the US?
Why is it acceptable for the left to ignore scientific biology and instead turn it into a state-of-mind, but it's not okay for me to "identify" as President of the United States? :dunno:
 
It's unacceptable for rouge regimes to threaten us with nuclear weapons. I'm all for a preemptive strike to destroy their nuclear capabilities.

Why is it acceptable for the US to threaten countries, but it's not okay for those countries to threaten the US?

Whom have threatened with nuclear weapons? It's not the act of the threat itself, it's the fact that you have to take a nuclear threat seriously

The US doesn't threaten with nuclear weapons, it threatens with invasion, bombing, sanctions and the like. It's still a threat, and it's still US arrogance that North Korea "threatening" something they can't even deliver is bad, but the US actually doing something is okay. How many countries has North Korea invaded in the last 20 years?

So because North Korea hasn't invaded anyone that means we should their nuke threats seriously?
Ever heard of a little thing called THE KOREAN WAR???????????
NK supported by the Chinese attempted to invade SK. NOT the other way around!
IF the US and it's allies decide to strike preemptively the NK rocket batteries, which have ALL been 'painted' will be vaporised by bombs delivered by B52s flying at 50K feet. The NK's will never know what happened.
The first MOAB will land on top of the Pervert's head.
That will destroy the country's C&C center.
Who the fuck liked kimchi anyway?

So if they take Un and Nk's nuclear sites out, no more Kimchi?

Hmm, decisions decisions.

I know how to make it anyway. :p
 
It's unacceptable for rouge regimes to threaten us with nuclear weapons. I'm all for a preemptive strike to destroy their nuclear capabilities.

What's a 'rogue regime?' Anyone or any country that refuses to be a US Puppet? That's what it looks like to me.
 
Almost certainly. The US is the cowboy, the good guy, the guy committing the genocide against the bad guys, the injuns, the ones defending their land from the encroachers.

"Boo hoo ... history sucks, life is meaningless ... the Universe is pointless ..."

Write a play about it, Chekov.
 
I'm not looking for anything to happen. I think that idiot in North Korea is willing to take a hit on his nuclear reactors and position the U.S. as an aggressor in effort to justify continuation of the war with South Korea. I just don't believe Trump will fall for the ploy.
 
Nobody want's a war.

Restraint from all parties is the word of the moment.
 
It's unacceptable for rouge regimes to threaten us with nuclear weapons. I'm all for a preemptive strike to destroy their nuclear capabilities.

Why is it acceptable for the US to threaten countries, but it's not okay for those countries to threaten the US?

It's also acceptable for the US to use WMD's on Japan but not for Syria to use them on ISIS.
 
I'm not looking for anything to happen. I think that idiot in North Korea is willing to take a hit on his nuclear reactors and position the U.S. as an aggressor in effort to justify continuation of the war with South Korea. I just don't believe Trump will fall for the ploy.

But the US has to be the world leader, don't ya know.
 
Almost certainly. The US is the cowboy, the good guy, the guy committing the genocide against the bad guys, the injuns, the ones defending their land from the encroachers.

"Boo hoo ... history sucks, life is meaningless ... the Universe is pointless ..."

Write a play about it, Chekov.

Do you have a point? Or just trying to play the archetypal bully?
 
Nobody want's a war.

Restraint from all parties is the word of the moment.

Actually you're wrong. There are plenty who want a war.

There are those who profit from war, the defense industry, the Republican Party. Then those who will use the fear and nationalist pride from war, the Republican Party again.... yes, people want war.
 
It's unacceptable for rouge regimes to threaten us with nuclear weapons. I'm all for a preemptive strike to destroy their nuclear capabilities.

Why is it acceptable for the US to threaten countries, but it's not okay for those countries to threaten the US?

It's also acceptable for the US to use WMD's on Japan but not for Syria to use them on ISIS.

Or on the Vietnamese. It's funny when you say "We didn't use chemical weapons in WW2" because they used atomic bombs in WW2, and Chemical weapons in Vietnam, but at least we didn't use chemical weapons in WW2, so therefore, we're the good guys.
 
Nobody want's a war.

Restraint from all parties is the word of the moment.

Actually you're wrong. There are plenty who want a war.

There are those who profit from war, the defense industry, the Republican Party. Then those who will use the fear and nationalist pride from war, the Republican Party again.... yes, people want war.


yes...the Military war complex....the neo cons:mad:

I know....we all know that..... so many ask for restraint....yes?

No war is always better for the people.
 
We're a WARRIOR nation and always have been, despite the fairies and weirdos teaching our kids not to be in the public schools. For every kid they turn into a flower-sniffing pansy, three will end up throwing fists outside a bar some night. It's in our DNA.
 

Forum List

Back
Top