We'll Handle It!

[OldLady]

The bed wetters couldn't handle their own dicks. North Korea got out of control thanks to the sociopaths they elected.

This isn't a Dem/Repub issue, Pete. No administration has been able to pacify No. Korea for decades.

You stumbled unwittingly into the heart of the issue. You cannot "Pacify" a bully. Attempted "Pacification" is exactly what EVERY President since Clinton has tried.

I heard on one of the new shows over the weekend that one thing North Korea would dearly love (and have never gotten) is a Peace Agreement. Technically, we apparently just have a cease fire in place. I had heard before that technically the Korean War has never ended. I know absolutely nothing else about it, but the fact that someone wouldn't agree to a peace agreement ending that war could be a thorn in NK's shoe, don't you think? Why do we never hear any more about that? Yes, the NK government is . . difficult and in our mind paranoid. But whatever the sticking points are, we aren't hearing about all of it, I think.

 

[TNHarley]

The bed wetters couldn't handle their own dicks. North Korea got out of control thanks to the sociopaths they elected.

This isn't a Dem/Repub issue, Pete. No administration has been able to pacify No. Korea for decades.

You stumbled unwittingly into the heart of the issue. You cannot "Pacify" a bully. Attempted "Pacification" is exactly what EVERY President since Clinton has tried.

I heard on one of the new shows over the weekend that one thing North Korea would dearly love (and have never gotten) is a Peace Agreement. Technically, we apparently just have a cease fire in place. I had heard before that technically the Korean War has never ended. I know absolutely nothing else about it, but the fact that someone wouldn't agree to a peace agreement ending that war could be a thorn in NK's shoe, don't you think? Why do we never hear any more about that? Yes, the NK government is . . difficult and in our mind paranoid. But whatever the sticking points are, we aren't hearing about all of it, I think.

Yes, it was an armistice. Which is basically what a "Cease fire" is. Obama rejected a peace agreement last year because NK wouldnt agree to requirements.

 

[TNHarley]

Probably never will agree. US/UN will want the nukr program to cease. For some reason, only certain countries are allowed to have nukes..

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

President Donald Trump told reporters at his second full Cabinet meeting as president that his administration will be able to take care of North Korea:
"We will handle North Korea. We are gonna be able to handle them. It will be handled. We handle everything,"
Trump on North Korea: 'We handle everything' - CNNPolitics.com

That's what I call some good thinking. I'm about as reassured as I was when he promised us a better healthcare system. As when he tweeted yesterday morning, "No chaos in the WH." As Stephen Colbert said last night, "We are so screwed!"

Why isnt that assuring for you, OL?

Because he is selling us a used car, TN. "WE" as in Trump and his cabinet could certainly have decided what direction to head in. This has been going on for MONTHS. The most we've gotten from Trump is a spit flying tweet razzing China for not fixing it.
China says it is a disagreement between NK and the US. Why should they be expected to fix it. They've got Trump on ignore.

Maybe thats why he said he "we" will handle it? Because China isnt doing anything?

Why would China do anything!?!

North Korea is a puppet state for China and when China want to divert the attention from them they have North Korea fire off test rockets with faulty Chinese Technology.

So why would China do a damn thing when they hold the strings that help diverting our attention from what they are doing in the South China Sea?

When it comes to Global Strategies the every say American is unable to think in an asymmetrical manner. They can only see what's right in front of them and have never been taught that the things you can actually see are NOT the things that you NEED to see. What you can see right in front of you is very simply a distraction to keep you (generic you, not you specifically) from seeing what's really going on.

Going after North Korea is going to happen but what is not being told is the reality we will have an all out war with China, Russia, Iran and North Korea.

Iran and China supply North Korea what they need to be the Puppet Regime that they are while Russia pulls the strings of those two countries ( Iran and China ).

Now unless America has the backing of the rest of the world then there is no damn way we ( America ) should entertain the idea of sparking this war!

It will be World War III and we ( America again ) will not win on our own...

India, Europe, Israel and a few other Countries will be needed if what I wrote comes true just for us ( Yes America ) to have a fighting chance...

 

[Pete7469]

I heard on one of the new shows over the weekend that one thing North Korea would dearly love (and have never gotten) is a Peace Agreement. Technically, we apparently just have a cease fire in place. I had heard before that technically the Korean War has never ended. I know absolutely nothing else about it, but the fact that someone wouldn't agree to a peace agreement ending that war could be a thorn in NK's shoe, don't you think? Why do we never hear any more about that? Yes, the NK government is . . difficult and in our mind paranoid. But whatever the sticking points are, we aren't hearing about all of it, I think.

They're not willing to negotiate from a position of defeat.

They haven't had to. At some point one side or another will.

Who would you prefer that to be?

 

[OldLady]

The bed wetters couldn't handle their own dicks. North Korea got out of control thanks to the sociopaths they elected.

This isn't a Dem/Repub issue, Pete. No administration has been able to pacify No. Korea for decades.

You stumbled unwittingly into the heart of the issue. You cannot "Pacify" a bully. Attempted "Pacification" is exactly what EVERY President since Clinton has tried.

I heard on one of the new shows over the weekend that one thing North Korea would dearly love (and have never gotten) is a Peace Agreement. Technically, we apparently just have a cease fire in place. I had heard before that technically the Korean War has never ended. I know absolutely nothing else about it, but the fact that someone wouldn't agree to a peace agreement ending that war could be a thorn in NK's shoe, don't you think? Why do we never hear any more about that? Yes, the NK government is . . difficult and in our mind paranoid. But whatever the sticking points are, we aren't hearing about all of it, I think.

Yes, it was an armistice. Which is basically what a "Cease fire" is. Obama rejected a peace agreement last year because NK wouldnt agree to requirements.

And I'm sure Obama is the FIRST and ONLY President who rejected such a peace agreement. Are the requirements that they not have nukes? LOL. That cat is out of the bag.

 

[TNHarley]

The bed wetters couldn't handle their own dicks. North Korea got out of control thanks to the sociopaths they elected.

This isn't a Dem/Repub issue, Pete. No administration has been able to pacify No. Korea for decades.

You stumbled unwittingly into the heart of the issue. You cannot "Pacify" a bully. Attempted "Pacification" is exactly what EVERY President since Clinton has tried.

I heard on one of the new shows over the weekend that one thing North Korea would dearly love (and have never gotten) is a Peace Agreement. Technically, we apparently just have a cease fire in place. I had heard before that technically the Korean War has never ended. I know absolutely nothing else about it, but the fact that someone wouldn't agree to a peace agreement ending that war could be a thorn in NK's shoe, don't you think? Why do we never hear any more about that? Yes, the NK government is . . difficult and in our mind paranoid. But whatever the sticking points are, we aren't hearing about all of it, I think.

Yes, it was an armistice. Which is basically what a "Cease fire" is. Obama rejected a peace agreement last year because NK wouldnt agree to requirements.

And I'm sure Obama is the FIRST and ONLY President who rejected such a peace agreement. Are the requirements that they not have nukes? LOL. That cat is out of the bag.

Maybe he isnt, IDK. That is the only one i know about. I just googled to see f there was more, and i didnt see any.

Probably never will agree. US/UN will want the nukr program to cease. For some reason, only certain countries are allowed to have nukes..

 

[OldLady]

I heard on one of the new shows over the weekend that one thing North Korea would dearly love (and have never gotten) is a Peace Agreement. Technically, we apparently just have a cease fire in place. I had heard before that technically the Korean War has never ended. I know absolutely nothing else about it, but the fact that someone wouldn't agree to a peace agreement ending that war could be a thorn in NK's shoe, don't you think? Why do we never hear any more about that? Yes, the NK government is . . difficult and in our mind paranoid. But whatever the sticking points are, we aren't hearing about all of it, I think.

They're not willing to negotiate from a position of defeat.

They haven't had to. At some point one side or another will.

Who would you prefer that to be?

Of course, Pete, it goes without saying. But do you really think it is inevitable we go to war with NK over a nuclear weapon we have thousands of and have not used? No one uses them because they don't want to become fairy dust. So there is no actual reason to believe NK is doing this as anything other than a deterrent, same as GB, Israel, Russia, France, India etc when they developed theirs. I get that we are not NK's friend, but pretending they haven't got nukes is not solving the problem. Telling them to throw them in the wastecan is not a strategy. That is not going to work either.

 

[OldLady]

This isn't a Dem/Repub issue, Pete. No administration has been able to pacify No. Korea for decades.

You stumbled unwittingly into the heart of the issue. You cannot "Pacify" a bully. Attempted "Pacification" is exactly what EVERY President since Clinton has tried.

I heard on one of the new shows over the weekend that one thing North Korea would dearly love (and have never gotten) is a Peace Agreement. Technically, we apparently just have a cease fire in place. I had heard before that technically the Korean War has never ended. I know absolutely nothing else about it, but the fact that someone wouldn't agree to a peace agreement ending that war could be a thorn in NK's shoe, don't you think? Why do we never hear any more about that? Yes, the NK government is . . difficult and in our mind paranoid. But whatever the sticking points are, we aren't hearing about all of it, I think.

Yes, it was an armistice. Which is basically what a "Cease fire" is. Obama rejected a peace agreement last year because NK wouldnt agree to requirements.

And I'm sure Obama is the FIRST and ONLY President who rejected such a peace agreement. Are the requirements that they not have nukes? LOL. That cat is out of the bag.

Maybe he isnt, IDK. That is the only one i know about. I just googled to see f there was more, and i didnt see any.

Probably never will agree. US/UN will want the nukr program to cease. For some reason, only certain countries are allowed to have nukes..

I did some reading on the diplomatic negotiations with NK over the years and it's stultifying. I appreciate you looking.

 

[TNHarley]

You stumbled unwittingly into the heart of the issue. You cannot "Pacify" a bully. Attempted "Pacification" is exactly what EVERY President since Clinton has tried.

I heard on one of the new shows over the weekend that one thing North Korea would dearly love (and have never gotten) is a Peace Agreement. Technically, we apparently just have a cease fire in place. I had heard before that technically the Korean War has never ended. I know absolutely nothing else about it, but the fact that someone wouldn't agree to a peace agreement ending that war could be a thorn in NK's shoe, don't you think? Why do we never hear any more about that? Yes, the NK government is . . difficult and in our mind paranoid. But whatever the sticking points are, we aren't hearing about all of it, I think.

Yes, it was an armistice. Which is basically what a "Cease fire" is. Obama rejected a peace agreement last year because NK wouldnt agree to requirements.

And I'm sure Obama is the FIRST and ONLY President who rejected such a peace agreement. Are the requirements that they not have nukes? LOL. That cat is out of the bag.

Maybe he isnt, IDK. That is the only one i know about. I just googled to see f there was more, and i didnt see any.

Probably never will agree. US/UN will want the nukr program to cease. For some reason, only certain countries are allowed to have nukes..

I did some reading on the diplomatic negotiations with NK over the years and it's stultifying. I appreciate you looking.

It has been just a big mess for decades.

 

[easyt65]

Of course, Pete, it goes without saying. But do you really think it is inevitable we go to war with NK over a nuclear weapon we have thousands of and have not used?

Only 2 nuclear weapons have actually been used on another country, both by the United States during WWII. There use arguably saved many, many more lives than it cost to use them. Their use did not come with any satisfaction or elation. The same could not be said for many entities around the globe, many of our enemies who would surely use them gladly were they able to get their hands on them.

'Nuclear Deterrence' is as a foolish antiquated idea, especially in these days where many of our enemies see dying and going to meet Allah as a reward, not a deterrent from using nuclear weapons.

Allowing terrorists and certifiable nut-jobs like Kim to possess nuclear weapons when they have openly declared their intent to use them on the US and have the technological ability to deliver on that threat is unacceptable. It is not only in the US' best interest not to allow this to happen but also the world's best interest.

IMO, however, it will be harder and harder to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrible people, and one day in the future a nuclear weapon or dirty bomb will be used again, this time by someone like Kim, some group like ISIS, or some nation like Iran...or Pakistan. Pakistan, for example, is a nation divided between loyalty and opposition to the Taliban...and the Taliban are growing stronger within Pakistan. It is extremely possible that one day in the future the Taliban will take control in Pakistan. On that day they will gain their own nuclear arsenal. Preventing them, or others like them, will become less and less feasible to accomplish.

If anyone thinks, however, that allowing North Korea to have nuclear weapons capable of reaching the United States is an acceptable idea, that they will never use them, I would argue that 'naïve' does not begin to even cover it.

 

[Pete7469]

Of course, Pete, it goes without saying. But do you really think it is inevitable we go to war with NK over a nuclear weapon we have thousands of and have not used? No one uses them because they don't want to become fairy dust. So there is no actual reason to believe NK is doing this as anything other than a deterrent, same as GB, Israel, Russia, France, India etc when they developed theirs. I get that we are not NK's friend, but pretending they haven't got nukes is not solving the problem. Telling them to throw them in the wastecan is not a strategy. That is not going to work either.

Its not about a weapon they have that we don't want them to have.

I would support their nuclear weapons ambition if they were a libertarian nation seeking soverignty and independence. Their agenda is the exact opposite and their goal isn't just self governance, its the subjugation of at least S. Korea if not the world as marx designed.

I will resist marxism and jihad so long as my right booger hook can break a trigger disconnect.

After that I get mad and stabby.

 

[OldLady]

Of course, Pete, it goes without saying. But do you really think it is inevitable we go to war with NK over a nuclear weapon we have thousands of and have not used?

Only 2 nuclear weapons have actually been used on another country, both by the United States during WWII. There use arguably saved many, many more lives than it cost to use them. Their use did not come with any satisfaction or elation. The same could not be said for many entities around the globe, many of our enemies who would surely use them gladly were they able to get their hands on them.

'Nuclear Deterrence' is as a foolish antiquated idea, especially in these days where many of our enemies see dying and going to meet Allah as a reward, not a deterrent from using nuclear weapons.

Allowing terrorists and certifiable nut-jobs like Kim to possess nuclear weapons when they have openly declared their intent to use them on the US and have the technological ability to deliver on that threat is unacceptable. It is not only in the US' best interest not to allow this to happen but also the world's best interest.

IMO, however, it will be harder and harder to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrible people, and one day in the future a nuclear weapon or dirty bomb will be used again, this time by someone like Kim, some group like ISIS, or some nation like Iran...or Pakistan. Pakistan, for example, is a nation divided between loyalty and opposition to the Taliban...and the Taliban are growing stronger within Pakistan. It is extremely possible that one day in the future the Taliban will take control in Pakistan. On that day they will gain their own nuclear arsenal. Preventing them, or others like them, will become less and less feasible to accomplish.

If anyone thinks, however, that allowing North Korea to have nuclear weapons capable of reaching the United States is an acceptable idea, that they will never use them, I would argue that 'naïve' does not begin to even cover it.

If anyone thinks, however, that allowing North Korea to have nuclear weapons capable of reaching the United States is an acceptable idea, that they will never use them, I would argue that 'naïve' does not begin to even cover it.
I am not defending NK here, but every time KJU has made his statements that he would bomb us out of existence, it has been IF he is attacked by us. I do not believe NK or the terrorists or any of the rest of the countries that are our enemies are actually willing to annihilate themselves by using a nuclear weapon. Russia never did back when we were deepest enemies. Neither did China. Neither will NK. However, it sure does make other countries think twice about bombing the hell out of 'em, doesn't it? LOL. We are already rubbing our chins and trying to figure out the consequences of bombing NK. And it is giving us great pause. So they have already "won."
You should not underestimate your enemies, Easy. NK is a rational actor, though we don't like their decisions. The great sticking point of recognizing them as a nuclear power when they are already being counted as a nuclear power by the world, is ridiculous and is greatly stopping any diplomatic efforts.

 

[easyt65]

NK is a rational actor, though we don't like their decisions.

What on God's green earth has led you to that decision?

The man is a certifiable loon. He has starved his own people to the point of literal cannibalism - eating their own dead. He has 'cleansed' his won advisors, government, military - to include his own relatives at times - because of paranoia. And despite the US having made no threats against the man (only our partnership with South Korea to keep them safe) he has vowed to nuke the united States. They are also reportedly working with Iran - our enemy, from whom they supposedly got some of their missile technology.

While I again respect your opinion, I respectfully have to disagree.

 

[Mac1958]

But whatever the sticking points are, we aren't hearing about all of it, I think.

I have no idea what's going on in terms of back-channel communication, but if I were President, I'd have Tillerson meet with one of their top guys in some neutral location, and just have him say something like this:

"Y'know, we have other shit going on, and no one knows why you guys are so damn desperate for attention. But you really need to know that you're now about one bad Trump hair day away from being turned into a Samsung parking lot. Our guess is that you guys are not as suicidal as you seem. But please understand. If you have something to say, you'd better say it pretty quickly."
.

 

[Doc1]

"In the year of 2000 there were seven countries without a Rothschild owned Central Bank:
Afghanistan
Iraq
Sudan
Libya
Cuba
North Korea
Iran

"The only countries left in 2011 without a Central Bank owned by the Rothschild Family are:
Cuba
North Korea
Iran

This should take care of all the "why" questions.

 

[Flash]

That weak cowardly Obama handed Trump turds with North Korea, the Middle East and Russia.