HorrorMovieFans.com

Foo wrote:That's great. So keep doing the same thing. In fact, we should just start selling them nuclear weapons.

Trump did not let it get to this point. Weak people who refused to stop it did.

The same thing has avoided war for 60 years. Don't knock it too hard man, it's a terrible situation. Trump will not fix it any better than Bush, Reagan or Nixon

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:I think when they are firing over you or into your waters, you take that as an act of war. Acting cowardly while they continue to develop technology with the sole intention of blackmailing you with the later cannot be tolerated.

If an enemy aggressor fired at my home, I would demand the threat be ceased. These sanctions have accomplished nothing over the years and people still act like they are meaningful. Demolish every single military installation and vehicle. When they are ready to surrender on your terms, stop. If they do not surrender, start hitting the government buildings, then the infrastructure. Stop, let them rebuild and hit it again when it is 80% complete. There is your sanctions.

At what cost? What's an acceptable loss of life on this for you? And I mean among your allies and your soldiers.

Unfortunately the lives lost today pale in comparison to the lives lost tomorrow to a nuclear weapon. Folks in the military volunteer to serve. Their loss of life is always tragic, but they do it to save innocent lives who have no choice when the bomb falls on their city.

I think it's a rash and unwise choice. For a start, your military may be sacrificed in your eyes but Seoul and other SK cities would surely not be as willing to be sacrificed.

The threat continues to grow. What do you think is going to happen when they get a cache of nuclear weapons?

They finally feel safe and start becoming a normalized nation state.

There you go. We should just give every one nuclear weapons. Mutually assured destruction is the way to happiness.

That was the theory of the Cold War.

Aren't you demonstrating the problem with establishment thinking? Literally advocating the same failed policies and expecting a different result,

Foo wrote:Aren't you demonstrating the problem with establishment thinking? Literally advocating the same failed policies and expecting a different result,

Failed by what metric? I'm just a realist. Either you can admit you want hundreds of thousands of not millions to die, or you're not taking the question seriously.

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:Aren't you demonstrating the problem with establishment thinking? Literally advocating the same failed policies and expecting a different result,

Failed by what metric? I'm just a realist. Either you can admit you want hundreds of thousands of not millions to die, or you're not taking the question seriously.

My preference is zero deaths. I am fine with a stick and carrot approach to North Korea. There has to be a real stick and a real carrot, though. A path to peace must be offered, but if rejected and hostilities continue, there must be a response.

We must do whatever it takes to protect our peaceful allies. If that means devastating North Korea, then that is unfortunately an option.

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:Aren't you demonstrating the problem with establishment thinking? Literally advocating the same failed policies and expecting a different result,

Failed by what metric? I'm just a realist. Either you can admit you want hundreds of thousands of not millions to die, or you're not taking the question seriously.

My preference is zero deaths. I am fine with a stick and carrot approach to North Korea. There has to be a real stick and a real carrot, though. A path to peace must be offered, but if rejected and hostilities continue, there must be a response.

We must do whatever it takes to protect our peaceful allies. If that means devastating North Korea, then that is unfortunately an option.

The deaths i was talking about was excluding North Koreans. If you're prepared to see that many die then fine. I'm not. If it's a choice between all our war and diplomacy I choose the latter every time.

I see this same scenario playing out with Iran in a few years.

Tiggnutz wrote:I see this same scenario playing out with Iran in a few years.

Why? They seem on a very different path from a very different approach.

showa58taro wrote:

Tiggnutz wrote:I see this same scenario playing out with Iran in a few years.

Why? They seem on a very different path from a very different approach.

Their path is nuclear weapons

Tiggnutz wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Tiggnutz wrote:I see this same scenario playing out with Iran in a few years.

Why? They seem on a very different path from a very different approach.

Their path is nuclear weapons

I don't see how that puts them on the same path.

showa58taro wrote:

Tiggnutz wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Tiggnutz wrote:I see this same scenario playing out with Iran in a few years.

Why? They seem on a very different path from a very different approach.

Their path is nuclear weapons

I don't see how that puts them on the same path.

Both countries will obtain nuclear weapons and become an immediate risk to everyone around them that will have to be delt with by us.

Tiggnutz wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Tiggnutz wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Tiggnutz wrote:I see this same scenario playing out with Iran in a few years.

Why? They seem on a very different path from a very different approach.

Their path is nuclear weapons

I don't see how that puts them on the same path.

Both countries will obtain nuclear weapons and become an immediate risk to everyone around them that will have to be delt with by us.

But with vastly different politics of the region, history, goals, and likely requirements. Also, they are vastly different in terms of institutions and progress. As evidenced by the moderate government that was democratically elected in Iran in the last election. It's worth remembering that Iran was a very westernized nation before the revolution, and still has significant ties to the West, and indeed a chunk of their citizens actively wanting friendly relations with the West. they've complied fully with the Obama era requirements for their Nuclear programme and have been quite forthright with their programme and allowing inspectors in. You compare that to a rogue state with no Western access for 60 years, and it's just not the same thing. You've put it in the most simplistic and pessimistic terms, which does make it comparable as a headline. But It doesn't really encapsulate the political reality.

Iran needs to be continuously monitored and engaged, and their path back to a more moderate regime is relatively clear as a possibility, with good influence possible from many sides. I've got several friends from Iran, who travel back regularly, and they obviously love the West. There's plenty of optimism from their side about the fact that Iran is not the arch-villain that everyone makes them out to be in the US.

By contrast, North Korea is every inch the villain the US claims they are. A tyrannical state with literally no democracy or human rights, with a massive build-up of missiles, planes and troops all ready to attack and kill any foreign aggressor, who is actively seeking to flaunt UN sanctions, shows an unwillingness to deal, and is acceleratedly trying to get to a position of nuclear power as a pure self-preservation. They really don't have much in common with Iran, even in terms of nuclear programmes or their intent to use them. North Korea is a disaster 60 years in the making since the Korean war and the splitting of the North and South. Since then, it's been a constant tense build-up which does not have a good solution. There is no way Kim Jong-un just dissolves his hold on power and calls it a day, and there's no way the citizens can do anything to affect change. There needs to be a strong measure of calm around the whole situation as there's thousands of rockets and guns able to hit civilian targets within 1 hour of any kind of military engagement. There is no military solution that doesn not result in catastrophic deaths. There's no simple diplomatic solution. There's no way you can just "bomb a few military bases" and expect anything good to happen. The situation is one of the most difficult to navigate in the world, and it will end badly one way or another. The hope can only be that it ends without millions dying.

showa58taro wrote:

Tiggnutz wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Tiggnutz wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Tiggnutz wrote:I see this same scenario playing out with Iran in a few years.

Why? They seem on a very different path from a very different approach.

Their path is nuclear weapons

I don't see how that puts them on the same path.

Both countries will obtain nuclear weapons and become an immediate risk to everyone around them that will have to be delt with by us.

But with vastly different politics of the region, history, goals, and likely requirements. Also, they are vastly different in terms of institutions and progress. As evidenced by the moderate government that was democratically elected in Iran in the last election. It's worth remembering that Iran was a very westernized nation before the revolution, and still has significant ties to the West, and indeed a chunk of their citizens actively wanting friendly relations with the West. they've complied fully with the Obama era requirements for their Nuclear programme and have been quite forthright with their programme and allowing inspectors in. You compare that to a rogue state with no Western access for 60 years, and it's just not the same thing. You've put it in the most simplistic and pessimistic terms, which does make it comparable as a headline. But It doesn't really encapsulate the political reality.

Iran needs to be continuously monitored and engaged, and their path back to a more moderate regime is relatively clear as a possibility, with good influence possible from many sides. I've got several friends from Iran, who travel back regularly, and they obviously love the West. There's plenty of optimism from their side about the fact that Iran is not the arch-villain that everyone makes them out to be in the US.

By contrast, North Korea is every inch the villain the US claims they are. A tyrannical state with literally no democracy or human rights, with a massive build-up of missiles, planes and troops all ready to attack and kill any foreign aggressor, who is actively seeking to flaunt UN sanctions, shows an unwillingness to deal, and is acceleratedly trying to get to a position of nuclear power as a pure self-preservation. They really don't have much in common with Iran, even in terms of nuclear programmes or their intent to use them. North Korea is a disaster 60 years in the making since the Korean war and the splitting of the North and South. Since then, it's been a constant tense build-up which does not have a good solution. There is no way Kim Jong-un just dissolves his hold on power and calls it a day, and there's no way the citizens can do anything to affect change. There needs to be a strong measure of calm around the whole situation as there's thousands of rockets and guns able to hit civilian targets within 1 hour of any kind of military engagement. There is no military solution that doesn not result in catastrophic deaths. There's no simple diplomatic solution. There's no way you can just "bomb a few military bases" and expect anything good to happen. The situation is one of the most difficult to navigate in the world, and it will end badly one way or another. The hope can only be that it ends without millions dying.

The leadership of Iran the ones who will have control of the nuclear weapons have never wavered in their goal of ridding the world of Israel and the U.S. and they have never wavered in their support of terrorism. They will be 100 times more dangerous than North Korea.

Tiggnutz wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Tiggnutz wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Tiggnutz wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Tiggnutz wrote:I see this same scenario playing out with Iran in a few years.

Why? They seem on a very different path from a very different approach.

Their path is nuclear weapons

I don't see how that puts them on the same path.

Both countries will obtain nuclear weapons and become an immediate risk to everyone around them that will have to be delt with by us.

But with vastly different politics of the region, history, goals, and likely requirements. Also, they are vastly different in terms of institutions and progress. As evidenced by the moderate government that was democratically elected in Iran in the last election. It's worth remembering that Iran was a very westernized nation before the revolution, and still has significant ties to the West, and indeed a chunk of their citizens actively wanting friendly relations with the West. they've complied fully with the Obama era requirements for their Nuclear programme and have been quite forthright with their programme and allowing inspectors in. You compare that to a rogue state with no Western access for 60 years, and it's just not the same thing. You've put it in the most simplistic and pessimistic terms, which does make it comparable as a headline. But It doesn't really encapsulate the political reality.

Iran needs to be continuously monitored and engaged, and their path back to a more moderate regime is relatively clear as a possibility, with good influence possible from many sides. I've got several friends from Iran, who travel back regularly, and they obviously love the West. There's plenty of optimism from their side about the fact that Iran is not the arch-villain that everyone makes them out to be in the US.

By contrast, North Korea is every inch the villain the US claims they are. A tyrannical state with literally no democracy or human rights, with a massive build-up of missiles, planes and troops all ready to attack and kill any foreign aggressor, who is actively seeking to flaunt UN sanctions, shows an unwillingness to deal, and is acceleratedly trying to get to a position of nuclear power as a pure self-preservation. They really don't have much in common with Iran, even in terms of nuclear programmes or their intent to use them. North Korea is a disaster 60 years in the making since the Korean war and the splitting of the North and South. Since then, it's been a constant tense build-up which does not have a good solution. There is no way Kim Jong-un just dissolves his hold on power and calls it a day, and there's no way the citizens can do anything to affect change. There needs to be a strong measure of calm around the whole situation as there's thousands of rockets and guns able to hit civilian targets within 1 hour of any kind of military engagement. There is no military solution that doesn not result in catastrophic deaths. There's no simple diplomatic solution. There's no way you can just "bomb a few military bases" and expect anything good to happen. The situation is one of the most difficult to navigate in the world, and it will end badly one way or another. The hope can only be that it ends without millions dying.

The leadership of Iran the ones who will have control of the nuclear weapons have never wavered in their goal of ridding the world of Israel and the U.S. and they have never wavered in their support of terrorism. They will be 100 times more dangerous than North Korea.

If terrorist support and hatred of Israel are your criteria for danger, you should be looking at Saudi Arabia.

I think that there's a lot more progress to be made with Iran than there is to be made with North Korea, and I see a lot less similarities than you do. I also think there's been a vast overstatement of Iran's bad intentions compared to other countries in the region far more supportive of terrorists. Either way, the two do not compare well.

U.S. foreign policy dictates that we treat Iran as the new boogeyman in the region since we've opted to take Saudi Arabia's side in their Cold War. I find it all pretty funny.

I find North Korea to be funny.

Samsung has become too large and powerful a conglomerate, so they can be sacrificed while our air craft and naval teams assemble to Kim Jung-undo them, send them back to the stone ages.

Clean KO/TKO win for Crowder over Trevor Noah. Die in a fire, scum.

Jason wrote:Clean KO/TKO win for Crowder over Trevor Noah. Die in a fire, scum.

crowder creamed noah's unsubstantiated claims and opinions, by largely giving his own unsubstantiated claims and opinions. good call on that win.

That Crowder guy is excruciating. Whoever told him he could work in media is an asshole.