- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Military action against NK should not give non-interventionists heart burn
Posted on 4/12/17 at 12:22 pm to Tiguar
Posted on 4/12/17 at 12:22 pm to Tiguar
So long as we have ensured that such action receives approval and support from the Chinese and does not draw in the Russians against us either, as a noninterventionist I approve of action to dismantle the North Korean regime so far as it is within our means to safely do so.
0
Posted on 4/12/17 at 12:25 pm to Tiguar
Judge an enemy by their capabilities, not their intentions.
Stated by the best CO I ever had.
Stated by the best CO I ever had.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 12:26 pm to Iosh
I said "if done correctly"
If it blows up, I'm going to fall back on that
If it blows up, I'm going to fall back on that
Posted on 4/12/17 at 12:27 pm to fr33manator
Posted on 4/12/17 at 12:28 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
a world where people dont want to get involved in a war thats none of our business versus an unstable nuclear direct threat to our forces, allies, and interests is insane
wew laddie
Posted on 4/12/17 at 12:29 pm to Tiguar
WTF
Posted on 4/12/17 at 12:29 pm to Pettifogger
good post
Posted on 4/12/17 at 12:30 pm to Tiguar
You're a warmonger now? And making huge leaps about NK capabilities?
Interesting.
Interesting.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 12:32 pm to Pettifogger
No. I'm saying I support intervening. That can be through economic and political means before it goes hot, like Nt74 asserted.
I'm extrapolating NKs ability using Chinas sudden interest in the situation.
They were as happy as we were to let NK suck their own cocks in peace. Apparently the status quo is no longer in Chinese interest.
I'm extrapolating NKs ability using Chinas sudden interest in the situation.
They were as happy as we were to let NK suck their own cocks in peace. Apparently the status quo is no longer in Chinese interest.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 12:36 pm to Tiguar
NK isn't a country where if we leave them alone they will leave us alone like so many of you think.
They must have an enemy to survive. And that means occasionally sinking a SK war ship for example. That also means assisting other in resisting the US and exporting technology and weapons to Iran and Syria, who we know would love to get their hands it and have one of their many terror proxies to take down the west.
No - Kim must go. And it must be done within the next 12 months after the past 2 decades of failure and punting.
They must have an enemy to survive. And that means occasionally sinking a SK war ship for example. That also means assisting other in resisting the US and exporting technology and weapons to Iran and Syria, who we know would love to get their hands it and have one of their many terror proxies to take down the west.
No - Kim must go. And it must be done within the next 12 months after the past 2 decades of failure and punting.
This post was edited on 4/12/17 at 12:38 pm
Posted on 4/12/17 at 12:37 pm to Tiguar
quote:
No. I'm saying I support intervening. That can be through economic and political means before it goes hot, like Nt74 asserted.
I'm extrapolating NKs ability using Chinas sudden interest in the situation.
They were as happy as we were to let NK suck their own cocks in peace. Apparently the status quo is no longer in Chinese interest.
Oh look, a fairly sensible post that doesn't involve the hyperbolic dumbassery of your prior post
Posted on 4/12/17 at 12:39 pm to Pettifogger
Quote for me the part of my post that was hyperbolic and directly advocated for military intervention.
Eta:. I guess you could fairly assume I wanted to launch missiles yesterday from my title.
Not what I meant. I meant if it ends up going hot, it's not against "non intervention" principles
Eta:. I guess you could fairly assume I wanted to launch missiles yesterday from my title.
Not what I meant. I meant if it ends up going hot, it's not against "non intervention" principles
This post was edited on 4/12/17 at 12:42 pm
Posted on 4/12/17 at 12:43 pm to Tiguar
quote:What I'm saying is that "if" essentially carries your entire conclusion and I don't see how you can have any confidence in this administration doing it correctly
I said "if done correctly"
If it blows up, I'm going to fall back on that
Posted on 4/12/17 at 12:44 pm to Tiguar
quote:
Quote for me the part of my post that was hyperbolic and directly advocated for military intervention.
I pointed out the stark contrast between people whining about a very limited action in Syria, and people banging war drums for NK. And I'm right, it's fricking absurd.
You, in knee jerk fashion, tried to reconstruct my argument to apologize for a non-existent war in Syria while downplaying the yet-unknown (but certain, from your perspective) threat from North Korea.
It was a dumb post and the type of team-based shite you're not commonly involved in.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 12:47 pm to Iosh
quote:
I don't see how you can have any confidence in this administration doing it correctly
Just like the previous 2 administrations handled it? Kick the can down the road? That surely worked well! Why not try it a 3rd time. Right?
This post was edited on 4/12/17 at 12:48 pm
Posted on 4/12/17 at 12:48 pm to Tiguar
quote:
Military action against NK should not give non-interventionists heart burn
But you can bet your sweet arse that it will
Posted on 4/12/17 at 12:49 pm to Pettifogger
Not at all. You misinterpreted the purpose of my post.
It was to demonstrate the difference from a non-interventionist stand point. Not from a viability or "good idea" stand point.
You're just hypersensitive to "team based bullshite" because you constantly are against the tide and enjoy it. You see it when it's not there.
It was to demonstrate the difference from a non-interventionist stand point. Not from a viability or "good idea" stand point.
You're just hypersensitive to "team based bullshite" because you constantly are against the tide and enjoy it. You see it when it's not there.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 12:49 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
It was a dumb post and the type of team-based shite you're not commonly involved in.
Dressing down a member of the proletariat, are we?
Posted on 4/12/17 at 12:49 pm to SirWinston
quote:
I agree. I was going to get off the Train over a Syria invasion but I recognize that NK is worth the risk and that the NK people will be governed by themselves or China, not us.
That you wouldn't think North Korea is a situation exponentially more dangerous than Syria (outside of a possible Russian conflict) is insane.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 12:50 pm to beerJeep
quote:The previous two administrations demonstrated extreme incompetence and moderate incompetence, respectively, when it came to regime change in Iraq and Libya. Therefore I have trouble faulting their decision to "kick the can" on a much tougher scenario (North Korea).
Just like the previous 2 administrations handled it? Kick the can down the road? That surely worked well!
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News