Invade North Korea

[Forty Two]

How North Korea could nuke a lot of people - http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/d ... ans-at-any

[Forty Two]

John McCain "fat shamed" Kim Jong Un and this bigotry is putting the capitalist patriarchy of the United States at risk: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3203473/s ... y-fat-kid/

[pErvinalia]

Bomb the cunt.

[JimC]

When the tired old USA is thinking of putting its military feet up, here comes rEv, spurring them on to greater deeds of killing stuff!

[pErvinalia]

[Animavore]

I doubt Trump will bomb NK. He's bringing peace and prosperity, remember. I'm sure that increased military spending is just to buy some snax for the soldiers.

[pErvinalia]

True. He's the most liberal president they've had in a long time. No body is more in favour of peace than Donald. Believe me. I know.

[Svartalf]

Bomb the cunt.

Can't, Pyongyang is a suburb of Seoul, or the reverse... collateral damage would be unacceptably high.

[Hermit]

True. He's the most liberal president they've had in a long time. No body is more in favour of peace than Donald. Believe me. I know.

Indeed. He is such a contrast to that warmonger, Hillary Clinton. Why, he just sent 500 troops to Syria - for the sole purpose of planting peace trees, of course.

[laklak]

We'll bomb them into capitalism. Imagine the glut of doe-eyed ex-commie women on the mail-order bride market after that! I need to convert to Islam so I can grab a couple of them by the pussies.

[Forty Two]

True. He's the most liberal president they've had in a long time. No body is more in favour of peace than Donald. Believe me. I know.

Indeed. He is such a contrast to that warmonger, Hillary Clinton. Why, he just sent 500 troops to Syria - for the sole purpose of planting peace trees, of course.

Well, can you think of a war where Hillary came out on the "no" side?

[Hermit]

True. He's the most liberal president they've had in a long time. No body is more in favour of peace than Donald. Believe me. I know.

Indeed. He is such a contrast to that warmonger, Hillary Clinton. Why, he just sent 500 troops to Syria - for the sole purpose of planting peace trees, of course.

Well, can you think of a war where Hillary came out on the "no" side?

That's not the point, is it now? You keep calling Clinton a warmonger, with which incidentally nobody on this forum disagrees. in view of the fact that trump is wasting no time in shaping up just the same. The point is that trump is wasting no time in shaping up just the same.

After all your criticism of Clinton I expected a note of disappointment or even mild disapproval from you. Instead you evade acknowledging Trump's wrongdoing with your customary tu quoque tactic.

[Animavore]

It's almost like opposition to Hillary and support for Trump was never about what the shrieking cultists claimed.

[Forty Two]

True. He's the most liberal president they've had in a long time. No body is more in favour of peace than Donald. Believe me. I know.

Indeed. He is such a contrast to that warmonger, Hillary Clinton. Why, he just sent 500 troops to Syria - for the sole purpose of planting peace trees, of course.

Well, can you think of a war where Hillary came out on the "no" side?

That's not the point, is it now? You keep calling Clinton a warmonger, with which incidentally nobody on this forum disagrees. in view of the fact that trump is wasting no time in shaping up just the same. The point is that trump is wasting no time in shaping up just the same.

After all your criticism of Clinton I expected a note of disappointment or even mild disapproval from you. Instead you evade acknowledging Trump's wrongdoing with your customary tu quoque tactic.

Well, except that Trump campaigned on being in favor of one war, which was stamping out ISIS in Syria and Iraq. So, I can't really be disappointed in the fact that he's doing what he said he would do. Now, if he started rattling sabers in other directions, I'd wonder what he was up to.

Wrongdoing? You haven't even alleged a wrongdoing. He sent 500 troops? That's wrongdoing, is it? Note, Obama had sent 500 special forces troops over there shortly before he left office, and this is not really a change in policy. The idea is to try to shut down ISIS, I guess. I'm not particularly confident in their ability to do so, and I oppose any bombing or other military action in Syria.

[Hermit]

Well, except that Trump campaigned on being in favor of one war, which was stamping out ISIS in Syria and Iraq.

Are the measures Trump decreed to prevent all Syrians from entering the USA insufficient to safeguard the country? Bombing the living daylights out of civilians in Syria will do the trick instead? It looks to me as though you think fighting wars against Islamic terrorism is OK when the commander in chief is Trump, but not a president belonging to the Democratic Party.

Before you think I am defending the other presidents or H. Clinton's participation and support for wars, let me tell you that they never had the welfare of all US citizens in mind when they invaded Afghanistan, Iraq et cetera. First and foremost they were defending the likes of Halliburton. Hence the spectacular failure in their choice of targets.

Surely, you don't need to be reminded that most acts of terrorism on US soil by foreign born individuals were perpetrated by people who were born in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt, none of which Trump as much as threatened with an entry ban, let alone military action. The madrassas and training camps in those countries where the motivation and skills of Islamic terrorists is honed are in no danger of being bombed or harmed in any other way.

Your silence about Trump's failures makes you look worse by the minute. I didn't think it was possible since you abandoned your Coito account. You have metamorphosed from a libertarian conservative to a shrill and blind defender of a madman. Paranoia about the lunatic left fringe has created a panic in you that banished almost all your ability to reason from your head.