Republicans

Locked
User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 73015
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by JimC » Wed Oct 18, 2017 9:34 pm

You are probably right about the reasons behind most of those who want a pre-emptive strike, and that they would want it whether there was any imminent danger or other compelling reasons. However, 42 was making the point that there could be circumstances where a pre-emptive strike, even with its worrying consequences, could be the best option. I think those circumstances would be unlikely, but not impossible.
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 5700
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Wed Oct 18, 2017 9:46 pm

The US and the rest of the world can certainly trust that the eminently knowledgeable, statesmanlike and thoughtful current president would never order a preemptive strike without overwhelming justification⸮

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by Brian Peacock » Wed Oct 18, 2017 9:53 pm

JimC wrote:You are probably right about the reasons behind most of those who want a pre-emptive strike, and that they would want it whether there was any imminent danger or other compelling reasons. However, 42 was making the point that there could be circumstances where a pre-emptive strike, even with its worrying consequences, could be the best option. I think those circumstances would be unlikely, but not impossible.
Really? Was that what he was saying? Sounded more like an attempt to frame an aggressive action as a defensive action: "We must vapourise millions of people in a few seconds in order to protect ourselves." We all know that nuclear weapon are something that can never be used in good conscience, just as we know that the unilateral use of nuclear weapons would make an instant pariah out of any nation and it's people - yes, even the US.

:coffee:
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 73015
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by JimC » Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:11 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:
JimC wrote:You are probably right about the reasons behind most of those who want a pre-emptive strike, and that they would want it whether there was any imminent danger or other compelling reasons. However, 42 was making the point that there could be circumstances where a pre-emptive strike, even with its worrying consequences, could be the best option. I think those circumstances would be unlikely, but not impossible.
Really? Was that what he was saying? Sounded more like an attempt to frame an aggressive action as a defensive action: "We must vapourise millions of people in a few seconds in order to protect ourselves." We all know that nuclear weapon are something that can never be used in good conscience, just as we know that the unilateral use of nuclear weapons would make an instant pariah out of any nation and it's people - yes, even the US.

:coffee:
I was only considering a non-nuclear pre-emptive strike, perhaps to take out nuclear-armed missiles that very solid evidence indicated were being prepared for launch. I would never advocate a pre-emptive nuclear strike, and hopefully even Trump would not consider one.
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Sean Hayden
Microagressor
Posts: 17882
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
About me: recovering humanist
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by Sean Hayden » Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:45 pm

We've had them in our sights for a long time now. I did think we were supposed to bomb Iran first though.

It's weird to me that all this always gets put on whoever is in office at the time it finally kicks off. It's like I'm just supposed to forget that we've been building a case to bomb them forever now. Oh, what's this, NK is a problem? I can't believe this is happening with Trump in office --oh the timing, oh the bad luck. I guess if Hillary were in there we could bomb them for the right reasons... :dunno:

--just shoot me

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by Brian Peacock » Thu Oct 19, 2017 1:43 am

The difference between Trump's administration and the previous one, is that the previous one had a full State Dept involved in a concerted diplomatic effort, where the current one has a decimated State Dept and a leader who undermines its diplomatic effort by trolling NK's unstable maniac of a leader on Twitter.

Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 5700
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:02 am

No but no but yeah, the US has been building a case all these years (what is that case, by the way?) to enable the incompetent paranoid narcissist chickenhawk in his tweet-trolling of the other self-important, entitled-from-birth dingaling. Clinton would have been just as bad, amirite?
Last edited by L'Emmerdeur on Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Sean Hayden
Microagressor
Posts: 17882
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
About me: recovering humanist
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by Sean Hayden » Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:07 am

Diplomatic solutions like the sanctions that worked so well in Iraq? Like blacklisting the leader...

Look, I just can't accept that these nations get put on the shit list, get marked for bombing at some future date*, but actually only end up getting bombed because the wrong guy got in office.

*How else should we interpret Bush calling NK an axis Rose from the doomed paradise city?

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 73015
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by JimC » Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:09 am

The US has no good options when it comes to NK; for all his idiotic posturing, Trump has not, in reality, made a bad position any worse. Perhaps the best option, though anathema to the hairy-chested self image of the US, is to withdraw, to become isolationist, to let overseas regions solve their own problems and to only worry about continental defence, and to a degree, the amount of naval strength needed to defend US and allied shipping for world trade. Disengage, guys, disengage - it will save you heaps...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 47197
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by Tero » Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:13 am

A conventional war between N and S Korea could easily be triggered. Trump ordered bombings during dessert in Florida. Bombing N Korea missile facility would start a war.

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by Brian Peacock » Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:19 am

I'm not making excuses for NK. I'm not saying the regime shouldn't be challenged or that the world shouldn't let it know that if it looks to exert itself beyond its borders it's going to meet some serious resistance. I just don't think we need an idiot with poor impulse control shouting over the wall with a megaphone about how he could take them in a scrap, how he owns their ass and how he's going to send the boys round to teach them lesson any day now.

(love the avatar btw :) )
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Sean Hayden
Microagressor
Posts: 17882
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
About me: recovering humanist
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by Sean Hayden » Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:24 am

what is that case, by the way?
NK has proven incapable of following the terms laid out by the international community which were developed to secure the safety of its people and the stability of the region...

...we gave'em this, and that, and by golly, they still haven't got their shit together... amiright?

User avatar
Sean Hayden
Microagressor
Posts: 17882
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
About me: recovering humanist
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by Sean Hayden » Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:26 am

Brian Peacock wrote:I'm not making excuses for NK. I'm not saying the regime shouldn't be challenged or that the world shouldn't let it know that if it looks to exert itself beyond its borders it's going to meet some serious resistance. I just don't think we need an idiot with poor impulse control shouting over the wall with a megaphone about how he could take them in a scrap, how he owns their ass and how he's going to send the boys round to teach them lesson any day now.

(love the avatar btw :) )
Yeah, :sigh: I just think it's time for the US to accept their foreign policy failures, which you must admit have been pretty darn consistent for something that supposedly hinges on the guy in the oval office...

--thanks :biggrin:

User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 5700
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Thu Oct 19, 2017 3:42 am

Sean Hayden wrote:
what is that case, by the way?
NK has proven incapable of following the terms laid out by the international community which were developed to secure the safety of its people and the stability of the region...

...we gave'em this, and that, and by golly, they still haven't got their shit together... amiright?
I don't know about you but I don't see that as a case for starting a war which would likely result in hundreds of thousands dying.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by Hermit » Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:13 am

JimC wrote:Perhaps the best option, though anathema to the hairy-chested self image of the US, is to withdraw, to become isolationist...
The USA cannot possibly become isolationist. It has way too many fingers in way too many foreign pies.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 28 guests