Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, August 09, 2017

North Korea said on Wednesday it is considering plans for a missile strike on the U.S. Pacific territory of Guam, just hours after President Donald Trump told the North that any threat to the United States would be met with "fire and fury." The sharp increase in tensions rattled global financial markets and prompted warnings from U.S. officials and analysts not to engage in rhetorical slanging matches with North Korea.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Trump issued his strongest warning yet for North Korea in comments to reporters in New Jersey on Tuesday.

"North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen," Trump said.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

World War III. Thank you conservatives.

#1 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-08-08 11:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen," Trump said.

Jesus H. If Kim Jong-Manchild had said this exactly line it wouldn't sound out of place.

Thank you, righties, for sticking us with this retarded Orangutan as POTUS.

#2 | Posted by jpw at 2017-08-08 11:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

Right about now Kim's thinking, "My brother from another mother."

#3 | Posted by TedBaxter at 2017-08-08 11:43 PM | Reply

"Fire and Fury" is what Melania calls Donnie's bowel movements.

#4 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-08-08 11:51 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

So what DEF-CON level are we at? Anybody know?

#5 | Posted by shane at 2017-08-08 11:52 PM | Reply

I'm trying to recall which phrase about idiots arguing is most appropriate for this scenario.

This is who the conservatives chose and continue to support.

#6 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-08-08 11:52 PM | Reply

Anyone need iodine pills? I'm starting a business. Who ever said that 45 wouldn't create jobs?

#7 | Posted by ness_gadol at 2017-08-09 12:05 AM | Reply

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

--Wm Shakespeare

#8 | Posted by madscientist at 2017-08-09 12:36 AM | Reply

Bad, amateur move. Already DPRK has retaliated with a threat to attack Guam. If Trump holds to his word, he must attack Kim and soon. If he does not, nothing he says afterwards can be believed (kind of the story of the last uear in regards to Trump).

#9 | Posted by e1g1 at 2017-08-09 12:38 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

tear=year

#10 | Posted by e1g1 at 2017-08-09 12:38 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

Bad, amateur move. Already DPRK has retaliated with a threat to attack Guam. If Trump holds to his word, he must attack Kim and soon. If he does not, nothing he says afterwards can be believed (kind of the story of the last uear in regards to Trump).
#9 | POSTED BY E1G1

NW and the bears are repeating.

#11 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-08-09 12:41 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Bad, amateur move.

It's Trump.

That was a given.

Wish I knew what antacids his advisers and staff use so I could purchase some stock.

#12 | Posted by jpw at 2017-08-09 12:44 AM | Reply

He backed himself (and us) into a corner by running his mouth. He should have STFU and thought it over some more. No use hurrying up the end of the world.

Amateur indeed.

#13 | Posted by uncle_meat at 2017-08-09 02:08 AM | Reply

WWRD??? (What Would Rodman Do?)

#14 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017-08-09 02:13 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I suppose if Obama was still in office he would just drop trousers and bend over for Little Kim.

#15 | Posted by docnjo at 2017-08-09 07:07 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Little Kim is mimicking a Russian hooker by pissing all over SCROTUS.

#16 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2017-08-09 07:15 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Remember when people said Trump wouldn't get us into wars? I always thought that was a ridiculous thing to believe about someone who is obsessed with showing dominance over others and feels humiliated when he can't. It is complete insanity to give a person like that the nuclear codes.

#17 | Posted by rcade at 2017-08-09 08:56 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

This country found a petulant child, encouraged his temper tantrums, and then handed him the keys to the largest, most destructive arsenal this planet has ever known.

If anyone has been wondering why intelligent aliens haven't come here, this is why. As a species, clearly, we're too stupid to even make decent pets.

#18 | Posted by RevDarko at 2017-08-09 09:05 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

BLUFF

#19 | Posted by squinch at 2017-08-09 09:06 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

The way you liberals are talking, we may as well start preparing the Kim Jong welcoming party when he invades.

We tried it Obama's way, remember? His way was to kick the can down the road to the next guy and here we are.

Obviously, negotiation with NK doesn't work. Negotiation with China doesn't work.

Kim is still pushing. We need to push back.

#20 | Posted by boaz at 2017-08-09 09:07 AM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

"The White House, including the national-security team, was unaware President Trump was preparing to speak publicly about North Korea." -- Weekly Standard

We have a president who threatens the prospect of nuclear war with North Korea without telling his national security team first, and some people here still can't admit he's completely unfit for office. We will be lucky to survive this.

#21 | Posted by rcade at 2017-08-09 09:08 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

His way was to kick the can down the road to the next guy and here we are.

Obama's policy was to do what we could within a very narrow set of sane options. The lives of millions of South Koreans and 28,000 U.S. troops are at stake.

You want to risk all those lives with tough-sounding talk from a buffoon. Trump is Kim Jong Un with a worse haircut.

#22 | Posted by rcade at 2017-08-09 09:11 AM | Reply

Wow, Boaz... Just... Wow.

Kim Jong is a posturing idiot. He wants a nuclear weapon just so he can say he has one. He had no desire to attempt an invasion or even an attack on the US. All he wants is too be seen as a legitimate head of state (kind of like our own idiot in Chief)

If you are really THAT afraid of NK, you need stronger medications.

#23 | Posted by RevDarko at 2017-08-09 09:12 AM | Reply

Kim is still pushing. We need to push back.

#20 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2017-08-09 09:07 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

In my book, Trump spills American blood for his own pleasure.

#24 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-08-09 09:26 AM | Reply

The Democrats' plan for Kim: send him flowers and chocolates. And when Comrade Kim has operational capacity to nuke a west coast city, they'll say: Trump's fault!

#25 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-08-09 09:31 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Boaz is a longtime brainwashed member of the most murderous death cult on the planet. Jeez, what do you expect him to say? It's like asking ISIS to go easy on the middle Eastern Christians.

#26 | Posted by pumpkinhead at 2017-08-09 09:32 AM | Reply

#20 | Posted by boaz
We should start by turning all the electricity off at night!

#27 | Posted by Federalist at 2017-08-09 09:33 AM | Reply

The Democrats' plan for Kim: send him flowers and chocolates.

Tell us your plan, Nullifidian. And blind hatred of Democrats doesn't count.

#28 | Posted by rcade at 2017-08-09 09:34 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

I once thought conservatives were smart, but had different ideas about what was best for the country...

Here, I see I was wrong, as we have conservatives ENCOURAGING A NUCLEAR FIRST STRIKE!!!

Pull your heads out of whatever bodily orifice into which you have them jammed! You are cheering on the crazy.

#30 | Posted by RevDarko at 2017-08-09 09:35 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

And the Conservatives on here once again they are willing to defend literally any idiotic move that Trump makes even as Trump's own team admits it was idiotic and tries to cover for PeeTUS.

#31 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-08-09 09:41 AM | Reply

Good thing Obama ignored the flowers-and-chocolates crowd and boosted spending on tactical nukes.

Thanks, Obama!

#32 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-08-09 09:44 AM | Reply

Our ambassador to China should be informing the Chinese the either they imediately rein in Kim or all ships bearing Chinese goods will be refused entry into American ports. This is their problem, they created this monster and have supported him and his family for 50 years. Let them put their prosperity on the line. Tell them too that threats against our allies will constitute "attacks" and that we will absolutely respond with strong economic sanctions against both N. Korea and China. Economic sanctions are our only realistic weapon to use that could cause China to deal with their attack dog.

#33 | Posted by danni at 2017-08-09 09:55 AM | Reply | Funny: 3 | Newsworthy 4

"Tell us your plan, Nullifidian. And blind hatred of Democrats doesn't count."

Nulli didn't see your question RCADE so I thought I'd repeat it and maybe he'll see it this time.

#34 | Posted by danni at 2017-08-09 10:00 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

We will be lucky to survive this.

#21 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2017-08-09 09:08 AM | REPLY

You won't survive this. You're going to give yourself a heart attack getting all worked up over nothing.

#35 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-08-09 10:05 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Someone labeled my idea as "funny" but I sure as hell don't see any other ideas posted here. So Mr. Funny, whoever you are put your ideas up for everyone to consider. But you won't, because you don't have any.

#36 | Posted by danni at 2017-08-09 10:07 AM | Reply

Remember when Twittler tweeted about how horrible leadership would get us into WWIII?

Irony.

#37 | Posted by 726 at 2017-08-09 10:07 AM | Reply

all ships bearing Chinese goods will be refused entry into American ports.

You expect Twittler to blockade his and Ivanka's products?

Not gonna happen.

#38 | Posted by 726 at 2017-08-09 10:08 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Our ambassador to China should be informing the Chinese

China is not responsible for Norkistan's behavior.

Norkistan is responsible for Norkistan's behavior.

Get over your China-hate already. It makes you people look petty and insecure.

#39 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017-08-09 10:11 AM | Reply

Someone labeled my idea as "funny" but I sure as hell don't see any other ideas posted here. So Mr. Funny, whoever you are put your ideas up for everyone to consider. But you won't, because you don't have any.

#36 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2017-08-09 10:07 AM | FLAG:

You can see who flags things.

POSTED BY DANNI AT 2017-08-09 09:55 AM | REPLY | FLAGGED FUNNY BY J_TREMAIN

but your idea is funny. North Korea moves to protect its regime, so lets trigger a global economic collapse.

We're down to invade them, mass air campaign, or ignore them. Those are the 3 options left. No sanctions on them, nor China, can stop the regime from possessing retaliatory weapons. Regimes without them get invaded and toppled.

#40 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-08-09 10:11 AM | Reply

In the face of nuclear threats I don't see how economic blockade of our ports is too extreme. Seems to me that it would be the only thing we can do with any hope of causing Kim Jung Un to quit threatening our country. Everyone seems to be thinking we have no power in this situation, trust me, our economic power to devastate the Chinese economy is real and we could easily survive the loss of Chinese goods in the effort to defang this punk in N. Korea. Some American billionaires would lose billions, I don't give a rat's ass about thier losses, I would probably laugh about their losses just as they laughed as they outsourced American manufacturing to an enemy nation. This is still Red China, it is still governed by the Communist Party, it is still a dictatorship. We should have not compunction about boycotting them if they won't deal with Kim Jung Un who is only in power now because of the Chinese.

#41 | Posted by danni at 2017-08-09 10:17 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

You mean devastate the global economy, over saber rattling. It's not happening. If you think it's even possible, you apparently don't live on the same planet as the rest of us.

#42 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-08-09 10:21 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"but your idea is funny. North Korea moves to protect its regime, so lets trigger a global economic collapse."

It would be Chinese economic collapse, manufacturing sectors in many other parts of the world would boom, including here in the U.S. Only the American profiteers would seriously suffer. Your idea of invading, now that would be funny if it wouldn't be so tragic. You volunteering? Seoul is within shooting distanced of 10,000 howitzers. It is estimated that 30,000 people would die on the first day of a way with N. Korea. Your idea is dangerously stupid. Especially so if enacted before we even tried to use the powerful economic sanctions we can apply. That would just be stupid. Of course we should exercise every single economic sanction before we invade anywhere.

#43 | Posted by danni at 2017-08-09 10:21 AM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 2

"You mean devastate the global economy, over saber rattling. It's not happening. If you think it's even possible, you apparently don't live on the same planet as the rest of us."

Try to keep up, N. Korea now has a nuke that it can fit into an ICBM. Their leader is threatening to use it against us. That's not saber rattling, it's a reasistic threat that we cannot allow to go unanswered.

#44 | Posted by danni at 2017-08-09 10:23 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 3

The only way... the ONLY way... is to get out of Asia.

Retreat with your tail between your legs. Countries in Asia are only going to get stronger, not weaker, and there is NOTHING you can do about it.

Get those rapists in uniform to move out of Korea... Sorkistan can handle Norkistan just fine on it's own. Get them out of Okinawa too. Let Japan deal with China on it's own.

American meddling in Asia has stunted the development of mature diplomacy in Asia simply because of the false sense of security the US projects.

F.O. back to Little House on the Prairie before things get out of hand.

#45 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017-08-09 10:24 AM | Reply

trust me, our economic power to devastate the Chinese economy is real

Ooooooo!

FF

#46 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017-08-09 10:25 AM | Reply

It would be Chinese economic collapse

hahahahahahaha!!!

FF!

Keep going.

PLEASE!

#47 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017-08-09 10:28 AM | Reply

Collapsing the Chinese economy, and our economy, triggers a global economic collapse. The poor in both countries get the worst of it, followed by the poor around the world. How many poor people do you want to kill because you don't want North Korea saying mean things?

Invasion is not "my idea" (and I'm too old to be cannon fodder). It's one of the considered US alternatives. Sanctions have not worked. There are actually 4 alternatives past that: complete military intervention, mass air campaign, limited strikes against nuclear weapons development infrastructure, or ignore them. Other actions like cyberwar and sabotage are already going on, but those are speed bumps, not solutions.

The whole thing is kind of retarded to begin with. Look back at the original topic of the thread. "North Korea plans strike on Guam". Well no ----. We have extensive battle plans for striking North Korea. Russia has extensive plans for nuking us, we have plans for nuking them. Etc, etc, etc. It's what the military does, it makes plans. The only reason this is even a thread is because Trump has to have the last word in a pissing match.

#48 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-08-09 10:30 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Got kicked in the teeth in Iraq.

Didn't get it.

Got kicked in the teeth in Syria.

Didn't get it.

Is still getting kicked in the teeth in Afghanistan.

Isn't getting it.

Now it wants to take on Norkistan???

AND CHINA????

Hey.. go for it! LOL

#49 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017-08-09 10:31 AM | Reply

That's not saber rattling

#44 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2017-08-09 10:23 AM | FLAG:

Saber rattling - "the display or threat of military force."

Yes, it's saber rattling. It perfectly fits the definition of it.

#50 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-08-09 10:32 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

--Try to keep up, N. Korea now has a nuke that it can fit into an ICBM. Their leader is threatening to use it against us. That's not saber rattling, it's a reasistic threat that we cannot allow to go unanswered.

Danni seems to be the only one taking this threat seriously, and she's not even in range, unlike us west coasters.

#51 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-08-09 10:37 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Danni is right, but I think even China may have lost control of this nut. North Korea is more of a religious cult at this point. Kim and his people believe he's a god. At some point you have to realize negotiations have'nt worked. and we can not accept threats from him. Tremain you're an idiot.

#52 | Posted by patron at 2017-08-09 10:37 AM | Reply

They're not crazy, that's the worst mistake to make. All evidence says they're rational actors adapting to modern geo-political circumstances and technological advancements, acting to preserve a regime in a world that wants to put them on trial in The Hauge.

#53 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-08-09 10:41 AM | Reply

Have to add, doing so in a world where the real superpowers turn a blind eye to security agreements whenever convenient, and the only means that has ever worked to counter that fact is having a major retaliatory mechanism, like mass waves of anti-ship missiles in the Persian Gulf, or nuclear weapons on solid fueled TEL systems hidden deep in forests.

#54 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-08-09 10:42 AM | Reply

Danni is absolutely correct. China, being the "stronger big brother" North Korea is hiding behind, needs to be convinced to smack Kim down. The only way to do that is through financial means. The problem is, our president and his family can't Be conconvinced to give up their previous money for the security of the world

#55 | Posted by RevDarko at 2017-08-09 10:43 AM | Reply

Danni seems to be the only one taking this threat seriously

Encourage Danni to squat on LA beach, like poor-man's Baywatch. Maybe she can save America. Also make sure BOAZ is standing right behind her.

Tremain you're an idiot.

And you're Einstein.

#56 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017-08-09 10:43 AM | Reply

I suppose if Obama was still in office he would just drop trousers and bend over for Little Kim.

#15 | POSTED BY DOCNJO

He's not so do you have anything to say about what the only person with as bad of hair as Lil Kim has had to say or do you want to just keep living in the past?

#57 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2017-08-09 10:45 AM | Reply

"Have to add, doing so in a world where the real superpowers turn a blind eye to security agreements whenever convenient, and the only means that has ever worked to counter that fact is having a major retaliatory mechanism, like mass waves of anti-ship missiles in the Persian Gulf, or nuclear weapons on solid fueled TEL systems hidden deep in forests."

Those things do work against threats like Russia, not necessarily against nuts like Kim Jung Un who would rather sacrifice his nation rather than be upbraided by the United States or worse, regime change backed by the U.S. Make no mistake, Kim could absolutely cause the deaths of millions and the only restraining power that will affect him at all is the Chinese. There would be no North Korea without the Chinese intervention in the Korean War. McArthur wanted to nuke them back them, got fired for it. I'm personally glad Truman put him in his place.

#58 | Posted by danni at 2017-08-09 10:51 AM | Reply

"Danni seems to be the only one taking this threat seriously"

If "seriously" is a synonym for naive and simple-minded, then, yes.

I think we should ask South Korea what we should do. They have the most at stake in all this, not Danni, not Guam, not Alaska, not America.

#59 | Posted by pumpkinhead at 2017-08-09 10:51 AM | Reply

"Encourage Danni to squat on LA beach, like poor-man's Baywatch. Maybe she can save America. Also make sure BOAZ is standing right behind her."

One thing I know about BOAZ, he wouldn't be standing behind me like you would, he'd be standing in front of me. Him and I don't agree on too many things but he's definitely a soldier who would be on the front lines defending his nation and the cowards like you and Trump.

#60 | Posted by danni at 2017-08-09 10:53 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#33 #41

Danni is right guys, that is how to properly deal with NK right now. It'll hurt in the short term but the long term we would survive the economics they wouldn't. Plus it still gives you the MIC options later.

#61 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-08-09 10:53 AM | Reply

J_TREMAIN why don't you shut up. You {living in Pakistan} and North Korea are both China's red headed step child.

#62 | Posted by patron at 2017-08-09 10:54 AM | Reply

Those things do work against threats like Russia, not necessarily against nuts like Kim Jung Un

#58 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2017-08-09 10:51 AM | FLAG:

You have it backwards. Those are systems to defend against US. We're the one that goes around invading people for regime change.

Don't want to get a US city nuked? Don't invade. It's that simple. Without nukes, what's stopping us? Artillery vs Seoul, but that's going obsolete, which is the entire reason they're building nukes in the first place.

#63 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-08-09 10:55 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I'm just glad that Lil' Donald has found a playmate almost as dumb and egotistical as he is in Lil'
Kim.

As long as they misuse their toys.

#64 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-09 10:58 AM | Reply

"but he's definitely a soldier who would be on the front lines defending his nation"

Problem is, he's told to defend it by fools who know no better-- apparently yourself included. I'm pretty sure that if you were a republican back in 2003, you would have been driving that military-industrial bandwagon with a beeline to downtown Baghdad.

In any event, Lockheed-Martin thanks you for your patriotism and support-- www.reuters.com

#65 | Posted by pumpkinhead at 2017-08-09 10:58 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

One thing I know about BOAZ, he wouldn't be standing behind me like you would, he'd be standing in front of me. Him and I don't agree on too many things but he's definitely a soldier who would be on the front lines defending his nation and the cowards like you and Trump.

#60 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2017-08-09 10:53 AM

Holy cow what happened to you Danni. I think I'm in love.

#66 | Posted by patron at 2017-08-09 11:00 AM | Reply

he wouldn't be standing behind me like you would

Sister.. I would be a thousand miles AWAY from you. You're trouble and you're calling for trouble.

BOAZ can stand behind you or in front.. I don't give a &$^#*$

As long as they two of you stop Kim together!

#67 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017-08-09 11:01 AM | Reply

Don't want to get a US city nuked? Don't invade. It's that simple. Without nukes, what's stopping us? Artillery vs Seoul, but that's going obsolete, which is the entire reason they're building nukes in the first place.

#63 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

Its really hard to stress enough exactly how right this is. It's why NK ramped up the nuke program when we invaded Iraq. They saw the writing on the wall.

It's also why Iran has been far more negotiable. We can't invade because they have nukes. So they feel far more comfortable negotiating with us and can tone down the rhetoric.

#68 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-08-09 11:03 AM | Reply

J_TREMAIN ... You {living in Pakistan}

You have a vivid imagination, I must say.

But since you bring up Pakistan, let me remind everyone, we won't be pooping our nappies if it wasn't for them teaching Norkistan how to make nukes. Remember?

They did it deliberately.. with purpose... and they put us in our place without even trying. Now we got a migraine to work through thanks to them. And we have forgot all about them and instead give them billions every month.

"Satan's best trick is to convince us he isn't for real"

#69 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017-08-09 11:05 AM | Reply

"I'm pretty sure that if you were a republican back in 2003, you would have been driving that military-industrial bandwagon with a beeline to downtown Baghdad."

But instead, as now, I was opposing military action and encouraging the use of economic sanctions.

"Artillery vs Seoul, but that's going obsolete, which is the entire reason they're building nukes in the first place."

Easy to say from the safety of the U.S., not so much for the millions of residents of Seoul.

#70 | Posted by danni at 2017-08-09 11:06 AM | Reply

I suppose if Obama was still in office he would just drop trousers and bend over for Little Kim.
#15 | POSTED BY DOCNJO

Honestly, it would be more stick and carrot approach like we've done for decades.

Now however, Trump pumped up the rhetoric and made the threat seem imminent.

So lil Kim has his finger on the nuclear button all the more tightly and if he misreads a situation as an invasion or attack, he's launching. As opposed to when Obama was in office, it was pretty clear we were no where near an attack or invasion, so he would second guess anything he saw as possibly a misread of a situation. The world was safer.

Thanks stupid Conservatives.

#71 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-08-09 11:06 AM | Reply

Artillery vs Seoul, but that's going obsolete.

#63 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

It'll do what it's expected to do. How many civil an casualties do we have in the first hour of war, even without nukes? We'll probably have to reach back to WWII for a comparison.

#72 | Posted by Zed at 2017-08-09 11:08 AM | Reply

#69 | POSTED BY J_TREMAIN

I like how you literally have no options to suggest. You just whine about everything. It's very helpful.

You also can't defend Donald in the slightest. You can't answer back any of the criticism about how this was an awful move.

You literally just sit there and sulk. It's not comical. It's just sad.

#73 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-08-09 11:08 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

and encouraging the use of economic sanctions.

Economic sanctions (cutting off fuel) forced Japan to do Pearl Harbor in WW2.

Just sayin'

#74 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017-08-09 11:09 AM | Reply

I like how you literally have no options to suggest.

Read this thread again... I DID suggest an option. Our ONLY option.

Get out of Asia.

You also can't defend Donald

Why the hell would I want to do THAT???

#75 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017-08-09 11:11 AM | Reply

It would be Chinese economic collapse,

China holds over $2 trillion of our debt. We can't afford to take measures that might collapse their economy.

#76 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-09 11:16 AM | Reply

"I was opposing military action and encouraging the use of economic sanctions"

On China. China. Warfare by another name. Sanctions were phase one of the destruction of Iraq. Sanctions killed 500,000 children, which Madeline Albright, appointed by Bill Clinton, deemed 'worth it'

So now you will double-down on stupid. 'Neocons' often do, at the expense of Republican and Democrat water-carriers who do not know any better.

To place yourself as a stalwart bastion of the "front lines" having the back of the likes of Herr Boaz is pure supercilious malarkey-- as if you would be proclaiming the same thing 14 years ago.

#77 | Posted by pumpkinhead at 2017-08-09 11:16 AM | Reply

Economic sanctions (cutting off fuel) forced Japan to do Pearl Harbor in WW2.

#74 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017

Simplistic. Japan was an imperial and very aggressive military power. They had options to avoid war with the United States they should have used. If they were weren't imperial and aggressive.

#78 | Posted by Zed at 2017-08-09 11:19 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Donald is mentally ill in such a way that he might very well seeing a million die as an ultimate boost to his ego.

#79 | Posted by Zed at 2017-08-09 11:21 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The Democrats' plan for Kim: send him flowers and chocolates.
Tell us your plan, Nullifidian. And blind hatred of Democrats doesn't count.

#28 | POSTED BY RCADE

Yes Nulli... tell us your plan!

I guess that is the difference between you and me.

If sending flowers and chocolates to Kim would save 25 million lives and prevent war III then I would gladly send the chocolate and flowers.

#80 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-08-09 11:23 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Yes Nulli... tell us your plan!

#80 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017

Get stoned. Watch it on the tube.

#81 | Posted by Zed at 2017-08-09 11:25 AM | Reply | Funny: 3

"If sending flowers and chocolates to Kim would save 25 million lives and prevent war III then I would gladly send the chocolate and flowers."

But no Reese's or potted ferns.

A line MUST be drawn.

#82 | Posted by RevDarko at 2017-08-09 11:27 AM | Reply

but your idea is funny. North Korea moves to protect its regime, so lets trigger a global economic collapse.

Global economic collapse? Don't hyperventilate so much.

China has been moving away from the US for years. The only people that would be hurt by a blockade of Chinese products into the US is US consumers. China exported 18% of it's products to the US in 2015. It would hurt them but it would not trigger a global economic collapse.

www.thebalance.com

China would hurt, but the US would hurt more and Trump would hurt even more. No more Chinese investors paying $500K to his son in law to buy a Visa.

#83 | Posted by 726 at 2017-08-09 11:33 AM | Reply

not one comment from leftist ' about Clinton's "solution" to this problem...

and to further show I'm more fair than most of you 'daily kos wannabees"...

not one comment about "W"S "solution" to this problem from anyone...

all I read is trump trump trump.....CHINA...trump trump trump

and I'm supposed to take you seriously ?

no thanks....

#84 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2017-08-09 11:40 AM | Reply

All of you that are rejecting Danni's solution whats yours?

#85 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-08-09 11:44 AM | Reply

Next question do you believe Kim will or won't do what he said? I think he would, which is why I agree with Danni

#86 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-08-09 11:46 AM | Reply

All of you that are rejecting Danni's solution whats yours?

#85 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-08-09 11:44 A

While I"m usually diametrically opposed to Danni, there could be quite a lot of validity in her 'plan'.

#87 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2017-08-09 11:49 AM | Reply

Danni is right in some cases. We could use our economic power to break China or at least wound them. I've always said, we don't need China, China needs us. Without us, hardly anyone would be buying China's crap goods.

And as far as the debt, that doesn't scare anyone. They want to be paid back. Let it look like they aren't and see how they act.

#88 | Posted by boaz at 2017-08-09 11:55 AM | Reply

THE COWARDLY LYING TRUMP WILL TRY TO START A WAR TO DISTRACT FROM THE INVESTIGATION THAT WILL PROVE THAT HE IS IN BUSINESS WITH RUSSIAN MOBSTERS. THE DRAFT DODGING REPUBLICAN COWARD AND HIS QUISLING TRAITORS AT THE FOX NETWORK ARE TRYING TO CREATE A SITUATION THAT WILL ALLOW THE CAPITALIST FASCISTS FREE REIN TO FURTHER LOOT OUR ECONOMY. TRUMP IS A DANGEROUS TRAITOR. HE WILL GET YOUR CHILDREN KILLED WHILE HIS CHILDREN WILL STEAL WHAT'S LEFT. TRUMP IS A HOLLOW SHELL OF A MAN CAPABLE OF ONLY THE BASEST FORM OF RESPONSE. HE HAS NO SENSE OF HONOR, A TRULY FLAWED INDIVIDUAL. PRAY FOR AMERICA.

#89 | Posted by ABlock at 2017-08-09 11:58 AM | Reply

"And as far as the debt, that doesn't scare anyone. They want to be paid back. Let it look like they aren't and see how they act."

We didn't borrow money from them, they chose to but American Treasury bonds because they are still considered to be the safest investment in the world.

#90 | Posted by danni at 2017-08-09 11:58 AM | Reply


Holy cow what happened to you Danni. I think I'm in love.

#66 | Posted by patron

I've known Danni on here for at least 10 years, Danni's old enough to be my mother (and she acts like it sometimes too).

Even though Danni's not on my team, give me a a 40 year old, barefoot Danni (and her partner) and it's HEAVEN! :)

#91 | Posted by boaz at 2017-08-09 11:58 AM | Reply

It'll do what it's expected to do. How many civil an casualties do we have in the first hour of war, even without nukes? We'll probably have to reach back to WWII for a comparison.

#72 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2017-08-09 11:08 AM | REPLY

More like 9/11. SK has and continues to make significant investments in civilian readiness training, counter-battery capability, and air dominance. That's why NK doesn't really have a choice but to build nukes.

#92 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-08-09 11:58 AM | Reply

"That's why NK doesn't really have a choice but to build nukes."

They haven't had nukes for 50 years and SK has never invaded or threated to invade. They didn't need nukes, the damage they could inflict with conventional weapons is severe enough to protect their border. As others have said, I think Kim Jung Un wants a nuke to feed his own ego and Trump is just as childish.

#93 | Posted by danni at 2017-08-09 12:14 PM | Reply

We could use our economic power to break China

You can't use your economic power to flush a toilet.

A nation that survives on debt doesn't have 'economic power'... not for real.

#94 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017-08-09 12:15 PM | Reply

Trump draws a line in the sand and everyone runs around like the sky is raining nukes. Nothing will happen NK will continue to be belligerent and trump will do nothing. All this quote did was demonstrate trump's lack of credibility.

Remember when he said we had a carrier on its way to NK and in reality it was going in the opposite direction?

#95 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-08-09 12:16 PM | Reply

give me a a 40 year old, barefoot Danni

You'll have to settle for an 80 year old one, I'm afraid.

Good enough? Or you gonna back out?

#96 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017-08-09 12:17 PM | Reply

I would also like to mention that the sanctions on NK and Iran were stupid. For NK it just created additional tensions and perhaps created a threat and for Iran, these new sanction just proved that the U.S. doesn't stick to our word. Iran was complying with the deal we made with them about their nuclear program and we agreed at that time that we would not do anything more to undermine their economy but now we do exactly the opposite of what we said we were going to do in the agreement. Why would anyone make a deal with us now? We should have taken a lesson from the way Trump dealt with contractors, he doesn't keep his word on deals made and Iran would be completely justified now if they brought back the nuclear program and I wouldn't be surprised if they do. The desire by Congress to sanction Russia because of their meddling in our elections should have been a bill that only sanctioned Russia, the additional Iran and NK sanctions were unnecessary and counterproductive.

#97 | Posted by danni at 2017-08-09 12:19 PM | Reply

I would also like to mention that the sanctions on NK and Iran were stupid. For NK it just created additional tensions and perhaps created a threat and for Iran, these new sanction just proved that the U.S. doesn't stick to our word. Iran was complying with the deal we made with them about their nuclear program and we agreed at that time that we would not do anything more to undermine their economy but now we do exactly the opposite of what we said we were going to do in the agreement. Why would anyone make a deal with us now? We should have taken a lesson from the way Trump dealt with contractors, he doesn't keep his word on deals made and Iran would be completely justified now if they brought back the nuclear program and I wouldn't be surprised if they do. The desire by Congress to sanction Russia because of their meddling in our elections should have been a bill that only sanctioned Russia, the additional Iran and NK sanctions were unnecessary and counterproductive.

#98 | Posted by danni at 2017-08-09 12:19 PM | Reply

Shut up talking to me ------. It's about time you went to bed isn't it? You have to get up early to milk the goats before the Taliban comes to your mud hut.

9:19 PM

Wednesday, August 9, 2017 (GMT+5)
Time in Lahore, Pakistan

#99 | Posted by boaz at 2017-08-09 12:20 PM | Reply | Funny: 3

You have to draw up a plan with SK, China, and the US where they jointly control NK.

The problem is China doesn't want a democracy and US ally on their border, and the US doesn't trust the SK's or the Chinese not to become tight and edge us out.

#100 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2017-08-09 12:34 PM | Reply

#100 | POSTED BY 101CHAIRBORNE

Hence, it will be a nuclear NK moving forward.

Let's just deal with that fact as it was inevitable under Clinton's watch, Bush's watch, and Obama's watch. Keep in mind Kim is a god in his country. Without the status quo, he's no longer a god. I don't have faith in much, but I have faith in the desperate need for Kim to maintain his divine status. Nuclear power increases that ability. Nuclear war undermines it entirely (actually, blows it up entirely).

#101 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-08-09 12:57 PM | Reply

You can't let a tyrant threaten you with nukes on a daily basis.
It used to be a hollow threat, so it could be dismissed. Not so much, now.

If somebody threaten China, Russia, etc with nukes you can bet they wouldn't be calling for calm.

China could take Kim out and take over NK for all I care, but NK threats need to be addressed sooner rather than later.

#102 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2017-08-09 01:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"You can't let a tyrant threaten you with nukes on a daily basis."

Whatever. Trump threatened his opponent with prison on a daily basis.

Your sane way of thinking about things is why Hillary lost.

#103 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-09 01:07 PM | Reply

Let's just deal with that fact as it was inevitable under Clinton's watch, Bush's watch, and Obama's watch. Keep in mind Kim is a god in his country. Without the status quo, he's no longer a god. I don't have faith in much, but I have faith in the desperate need for Kim to maintain his divine status. Nuclear power increases that ability. Nuclear war undermines it entirely (actually, blows it up entirely).

#101 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-08-09 12:57 PM

don't get all "excited" over my next comment........but this post may be the post of the thread.

well done.

#104 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2017-08-09 01:12 PM | Reply

--China could take Kim out and take over NK for all I care, but NK threats need to be addressed sooner rather than later.

Before Comrade Kim has an operational nuke he can fire with a push of the button. Any President that allows that will live in infamy.

#105 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-08-09 01:12 PM | Reply

but it should start with the five billion and two nuclear reactors given to NK by clinton in 1994...

and we can't forget JIMMAH CARTER"S part in this....

n June 1994, former President Carter went to North Korea to negotiate with Kim Il Sung, president of North Korea. These negotiations were a great success. North Korea committed to freezing its plutonium weapons program in exchange for two proliferation-resistant nuclear reactors and other aid.

as for 'w' all I can get out of the radical crap from mahablog is that "W" talked mean to the little guy, but even if it's 'just' a foreign policy snafu, there is blame there as well...

so FOR ME ANYWAY....that's enough of the 'blame game"......question is......what now ?

#106 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2017-08-09 01:22 PM | Reply

MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING!

He might be irrational but he's not stupid. He will back down. He knows in any sort of fight, he loses on the battlefield and then loses his phony baloney job.

Self interests will win out as usual.

#107 | Posted by 88120rob at 2017-08-09 01:58 PM | Reply

China could take Kim out and take over NK for all I care, but NK threats need to be addressed sooner rather than later.
#102 | POSTED BY 101CHAIRBORNE

Addressed in the same manner described by Trump yesterday?

I'm sorry. I do not agree with the notion that millions of people should die over a threat, especially one coming from a dictator unproven in military conflicts. I mean ----! He JUST got his missile off the ground; did you see how exuberant he was? That's not a face of "I'm here to take over your country." That's a face saying "Holy ----! I may no longer be a flea in the global political arena anymore."

#108 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-08-09 02:02 PM | Reply

Any President that allows that will live in infamy.
#105 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Tank you Donnie-Do-Good!

#109 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-08-09 02:04 PM | Reply

You have to get up early to milk the goats before the Taliban comes to your mud hut.

I believe it's still daylight wherever the hell you are. That leaves you enough time to get a job selling women's shoes, pervert.

#110 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017-08-09 03:13 PM | Reply

Before Comrade Kim has an operational nuke he can fire with a push of the button. Any President that allows that will live in infamy.

#105 | Posted by nullifidian

North Korea just stated that it is in the final stages of developing a nuclear weapon capable of reaching parts of the U.S. It won't happen!
3:05 PM - 2 Jan 2017

Chalk up another big win for Humpy Trumpy.

"we can't forget JIMMAH CARTER"S part in this...."

Of course, this is Jimmy Carter's fault somehow.

I would expect no less from Babbles.

#111 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-08-09 03:24 PM | Reply

Actually it's the fault of every administration since the armistice. They have seized our ship, kidnapped south koreans, killed our people in the DMZ, shelled south korea, sank a south korean naval ship,and constant threats. All these actions have only resulted in is bribes in the form of aid.

#112 | Posted by patron at 2017-08-09 03:54 PM | Reply

Of course, this is Jimmy Carter's fault somehow.

I would expect no less from Babbles.

#111 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-08-09 03:24 PM |

pick out your nose hair....pick your nose.....pick bugs out of your radiator....but if you're gonna

comment on that post of mine... don't pick out one part so you can make your disingenuous little whine

and not even mention that I included "W" in that post as to a part of the blame, but DON'T LET THE FACTS

GET IN YOUR WAY when you're showing us your bias.

#113 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2017-08-09 04:17 PM | Reply

I guess I'm going to be forced to exclude Donner from this because this is meant as some sort of

solution rather than whatever "mission" he's on..

....but I read this.....I will admit to knowing little about this... as to the validity of this idea, even if possible......but at this point, why eliminate anything from the discussion....

If we have the ability to neutralize their electrical capabilities, they cannot arm their nukes or launch their missiles. You may say that they would have already protected their circuits against an EMP, but we may possess a means to bypass those protections, too.

#114 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2017-08-09 04:20 PM | Reply

"If we have the ability to neutralize their electrical capabilities,

Boy you know you are living in a Topsy Turvy World when Babbles actually thinks more clearly than our fire and brimstone President.

But, ANY aggressive act against North Korea would invite war and destruction. I am betting that the artillery poised to unleash hell on Seoul won't be stopped by any EMP.

I can see you guys and the media are just itching for WWIII.

I will leave you to it.

But, I can see from Babbles little rant already that no matter what happens Trump and the Trumpets will try and not own it.

#115 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-08-09 05:20 PM | Reply

who is Frankly Power?
...friend of Rodman's?

#116 | Posted by ichiro at 2017-08-09 05:54 PM | Reply

But, I can see from Babbles little rant already that no matter what happens Trump and the Trumpets will try and not own it.

#115 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-08-09 05:20

I CHOSE to post a legitimate question....YOU CHOSE to be a jerk...

own that diplitz...

#117 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2017-08-09 09:54 PM | Reply

such an inappropriate reply from the potus.......CNN

think again dumba$$.....Harry Truman.

#118 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2017-08-09 09:55 PM | Reply

follow-up post:
And after Kim's predictable threat, Trump....?
DID NOTHING.

#119 | Posted by e1g1 at 2017-08-09 10:29 PM | Reply

"Fire and Fury"...tough talk from The heelspurs in Chief

Leaders are defined by their responses to the threats which happen on their watch.

DJT has been in office for over six months. He has received countless briefings on NKorea's capabilities and the US' options (insurgent and overt). He began receiving these briefings no later than his election win in November (9 months ago).

200+ days into the office of Commander in Chief and Drumpfers continue to believe that Trump does not own the chair.

#sad

#120 | Posted by worldasifindit at 2017-08-09 10:53 PM | Reply

1. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). McCain slammed Trump over his "fire and fury" remarks since he wasn't sure if Trump would be willing to back them up, but McCain has called for military strikes against North Korea numerous times.
In 2003, McCain excoriated the Bush administration for taking military strikes against North Korea off the table, writing in The Weekly Standard that America must show that it's willing to "do whatever it must to guarantee the security of the American people."

As recently as April, McCain said it would be "foolish" to take military strikes against North Korea off the table.

2. Bill Clinton. In 1993, then-President Clinton threatened a massive strike against North Korea if they obtained nuclear weapons.

"It would mean the end of their country as they know it," said Clinton.

3. Jeb Bush. During a February Republican presidential debate, the former Florida governor said that "if a preemptive strike is necessary to keep us safe, then we should do it" when it comes to North Korea.

4. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). Graham seemed to back Trump's comments on Wednesday, telling CBS, "President Trump has basically drawn a red line. Saying that he'll never allow North Korea to have an ICBM missile that can hit America with a nuclear weapon on top. He's not going to let that happen."

Graham acknowledged that a war with North Korea would get ugly, but he argued that he doesn't "want to live for the next 50 years under that threat" of North Korea being armed with an intercontinental ballistic missile carrying a nuke.

5. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA). During the vice presidential debate, Kaine said that "a president should take action to defend the United States against imminent threat" should North Korea be poised to launch a nuke toward the United States.

#121 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2017-08-09 11:28 PM | Reply

Trump owns the response to this threat during his presidency.

Whether the response is diplomatic or military, covert or overt; Trump is the commander in chief.

This isn't a problem for past presidents. This isn't a problem for the legislative or judicial branches (unless DJT wants a formal declaration of war...note: conservatives own both houses and the SCOTUS).

This is an executive branch decision. Trump is the POTUS and has been for the better part of a year.

Dear Mr. President: Own the decision or get the f--- out of the chair.

#122 | Posted by worldasifindit at 2017-08-10 01:17 AM | Reply

The Democrats' plan for Kim: send him flowers and chocolates. And when Comrade Kim has operational capacity to nuke a west coast city, they'll say: Trump's fault!

#25 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-08-09 09:31 AM | Reply |

There isn't anymore truth than this.

#123 | Posted by Crassus at 2017-08-10 04:14 AM | Reply

There comes a time when we as a nation must tell the world goof balls "no more"

We all know NK kim is psycho, but it amazes me that so many here think it will be perfectly OK to allow him to achieve nukes.

Might as well allow ISIS get them too!

#124 | Posted by Crassus at 2017-08-10 04:18 AM | Reply

' There comes a time when we as a nation must tell the world goof balls "no more" '

This statement probably would have more impact if we, as a nation, had voted differently last election. As it stands now, the world in general views us as comical buffoons (at best) or dangerous loose cannons (at worst). Few view the US as the source of prudent leadership. Regardless if military action is the best/wisest decision, don't expect to be enjoined by the rest of the world in that "adventure".

#125 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2017-08-10 06:18 AM | Reply

Remember when he (Trump) said we had a carrier on its way to NK and in reality it was going in the opposite direction? - #95 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-08-09 12:16 PM
No, I don't recall that. Why don't you find the quote where Trump claimed a carrier was headed to NK.
Difficulty: Armada != Carrier.

#126 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-08-10 08:26 AM | Reply

Didn't Russian Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev just call him "impotent"? What's a 71-year-old malignant narcissist with a popularity in the low thirties to do?

Trump had no alternative but to do something, urgently, to show he's strong ...

Our current President is constantly blowing smoke up everyone's @$$.

At the same time he has quietly reduced tensions with Russia and crippled the CIA's insane Syrian war which has been justified largely by their false claim that Assad used chemical weapons. Our intelligence agencies are pathological liars and routinely lie under oath to Congress with no consequences. You better not try that though.

When Obama drew a line in the sand over chemical weapons against Assad he endured a long running Republican hate campaign for allegedly making an empty threat. Not really true because there is no proof Assad ever gassed his people and Obama knows it.

But hasn't Trump just drawn a line in the sand because after his rant Kim Jong-un immediately threatened to bomb Guam?

Don't worry, the Democrats will not respond with a single long running vicious talking point, like the Republicans constantly do.

#127 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-08-10 09:18 AM | Reply

This is an executive branch decision. Trump is the POTUS and has been for the better part of a year.

Dear Mr. President: Own the decision or get the f--- out of the chair.

#122 | Posted by worldasifindit at 2017-08-10 01:17 AM

This is, of course, true.......doesn't remove or even reduce the overwhelming amnesia that goes on in the leftist

world daily.

#128 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2017-08-10 10:33 AM | Reply

"the overwhelming amnesia that goes on in the leftist world daily."

What a riot.

If HRC and her campaign had done 1/10th of the carp the Trump campaign did, your head would explode.

#129 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-08-10 11:11 AM | Reply

Yesterday I tried to have a pleasant conversation with you even to the... now unwise... point of paying

you a compliment. Today, please don't expect a reply from me on pretty much any topic.

Your response to this, I'm quite sure, will be one that is expected, typical and right out of the

narcissistic vainglorious playbook.

peace....

#130 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2017-08-10 12:06 PM | Reply

The notion that the USA, with the largest military machine on the planet, is actually threatened by little North Korea is absurd. US politics are a violent farce.

#131 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-08-10 01:46 PM | Reply

No, I don't recall that. Why don't you find the quote where Trump claimed a carrier was headed to NK.
Difficulty: Armada != Carrier.
"Trump said Navy ships were headed toward North Korea. They were going the other way"

www.latimes.com

Senility?

#132 | Posted by danni at 2017-08-10 06:15 PM | Reply

I predict that Trump is going to be forced to recognize Chinese claims to territorial waters around the man made islands they have in the S. China Sea in exchange for China letting him deal with Kim Jung UN in a violent manner if Kim actually fires those missiles at Guam. Once those missiles take off it is no longer a "threat," then it becomes an "attack" on the U.S. However, I do not think they will use nuclear weapons because the radiation cloud would jeopardize the lives of millions of S. Koreans. They can though destroy much of Pyongyang using only conventional bombs dropped from Stealth bombers. At the same time they could destroy much of NK's military infrastructure. I'm not advocating any of this but it is sort of what I expect Trump to do in the event of any attack. He wants to be regarded as a "tough guy" and any willingness to accept an attack without a massive response would ruin his reputation as one forever. This would also serve to change the conversation away from the Russia investigation.

#133 | Posted by danni at 2017-08-10 06:23 PM | Reply

"it amazes me that so many here think it will be perfectly OK to allow him to achieve nukes."

It amazes me that you actually think that is so. Too much Fox Fake News I suppose.

No one here thinks it is perfectly OK for North Korea to have nukes. No one here thinks it was perfectly ok for Pakistan to have nukes.

The world did not end when Pakistan got nukes. The world did not end when Israel got nukes. The world did not end when North Korea got nukes.

The world can "end" (for 10s of millions possibly) if Trump and Kim get into a saber rattling contest and someone makes a mistake. Trump has now egged Kim into the position of actually firing missiles at Guam to prove that Trump cannot bully him. Nice move Humpy Trumpy. This is a very dangerous situation Trump has put the world in. Trump double dog dared Kim to threaten us again or he will rain "Fire and Fury" on him. So now Kim has taken that dare and threatened us again. And what has Trump done? What can he do now? Nothing.

That is because that is a check that Trump cannot cash.

But, I guess that has always been the Art of Humpy Trumpy Deals.

#134 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-08-10 06:57 PM | Reply

"Once those missiles take off it is no longer a "threat," then it becomes an "attack" on the U.S."

I have to disagree with you Danni.

If (I now suspect when) Kim launches those missiles and they land outside the territorial waters of the US (and they don't hit anything buy water) that is not actually an attack at all. It is a show of force. However, as I mentioned above the possibly now exists that someone will miscalculate dragging us into a war we do not want and did not need. This situation has been artificially induced by Trump's egotistical blustering. This did not need to happen.

#135 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-08-10 07:11 PM | Reply

(buy = but)

#136 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-08-10 07:12 PM | Reply

Trump knows more than the generals; meaning he knows what --------- will pass his lips at any moment than the generals of whom he speaks. His insanity is shining through for all the world to see.

#137 | Posted by b_al at 2017-08-10 10:05 PM | Reply

​#128 | POSTED BY AFKABL2

I'm not averse to historical context; it is good to have context. However, for example, regardless of the roles Carter or Reagan played in the creation of the Mujahideen>Taliban, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are products owned by the Bush administration. Owning those situations IS the job for which a president is hired.

This was true for both Adams presidents, Madison, Jackson, Lincoln, Grant, both Roosevelt presidents, Wilson, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, both Bush presidents, Obamma and so on and so on.

The only president in US history who did not inherit the repercussions of his predecessors' actions (good or bad) was Washington.

Pursuant to the "what now" question (post 106), 62,984,825 people gave their answer last November. Those voters felt that Trump's combination of personal disposition and professional experience aligned well with the responsibilities of the Commander in Chief of all US armed forces.

This is the job and 62,984,825 voters said they wanted Trump to do it. If you're tired of hearing about Trump, take it up with the people who put him in office.

Finally, you're not asserting that historical amnesia (or, put another way, selective memory) is a partisan affliction, are you? I mean, you can't possibly believe that every conservative has a perfect, all-encompassing understanding and recall of all events germane to the current state of geopolitics (minus partisan bias). Or...well...do you?

#138 | Posted by worldasifindit at 2017-08-11 12:11 AM | Reply

^Hey!

I like this guy!

#139 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-08-11 12:39 AM | Reply

#138
Why bring up the fact that Donald Trump's got 62,979,636 votes when Hillary got 65,844,610? The outcome is decided by the electoral college where Trump got 304 votes and Hillary got 227. That result was probably on account of Republican cheating. The official final count for Florida in 2000 was that Republicans did cheat Gore out of his victory in Florida. Most people think Bush won by about 500 votes. But, no matter which counting standard you apply (they were four ways proposed for counting the ballots). Gore actually won by about 100 votes. You don't need the Russians to explain these anomalies. Republicans are openly cheating wherever they control the vote process. In order to get away with it the cheating must be subtle. In 2000 it didn't work and they still prevailed through a series of post election illegal interferences.

www.consortiumnews.com

We have no way of actually knowing, at this point, whether the Republicans cheated in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. But we do know they have the means and the motive to cheat and a long history of cheating.

#140 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-08-11 07:08 AM | Reply

'We have no way of actually knowing, at this point, whether the Republicans cheated in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. But we do know they have the means and the motive to cheat and a long history of cheating."

That is like saying we had no way of knowing if the New England Patriots were cheating as they knew the plays that the other team was going to play. We know they cheated but they have managed to cover their tracks, Interstate Crosscheck is their method now of cheating right out in the light of day. Republicans don't cheat in elections as an aberation, they do it as a strategy of their party and they all know it but pretend not to know it. They are good at denying their own knowledge about what they do because the Republican Party is a criminal enterprise. Wake up and accept the truth. Democrats whine because we lose, we lose because they are criminals. We are like old ladies getting robbed by con artists. I will give them credit, they are better con artists than Democrats, we aren't even in their league.

#141 | Posted by danni at 2017-08-11 08:02 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort