|
Post by jdd2 on Mar 23, 2018 5:18:47 GMT -5
I guess when nobody wants to work for you, you scrape the bottom of the barrel for the "best" of what's left.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2018 5:48:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by millring on Mar 23, 2018 6:23:07 GMT -5
Like Frankenstein and Taylor Guitars, John has a Bolton neck.
|
|
|
Post by majorminor on Mar 23, 2018 9:04:12 GMT -5
Is that the dude with the really white mustache and dark hair?
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Mar 23, 2018 9:35:00 GMT -5
I see that The New York Times thinks that few people are more likely than Bolton to lead us into war. That seems unnecessarily alarmist. I'm sure that any such tendencies Bolton may have will be kept under control by our cool-headed president.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Mar 23, 2018 10:30:38 GMT -5
I've heard Bolton hear and there. He doesn't strike me as all that different than any of the rest of those guys.
"Lead us into war"? We already are at war. We've been in a continuous war for years. We've got so accustomed to being at war, we don't remember what not being at war is even like. When was the last time a full month went by without some element of the US armed forces firing a shot against an enemy?
We make jokes about war, because war is funny.
I remember when Gary Johnson was mocked and ridiculed for not knowing anything about Aleppo. (Generally by the same people who bombed the shit out of Libya, and in the process turning it into the Mediterranean paradise that it is today.)
I bet John Bolton can tell you you all about Aleppo.
|
|
|
Post by Don Clark on Mar 23, 2018 10:40:27 GMT -5
Or is this just another smoke screen to distract from Mueller being close to going in for the kill?
|
|
|
Post by RickW on Mar 23, 2018 11:02:45 GMT -5
If he scares the North Koreans into giving up their belligerence and nukes, power to him. But I don’t feel terribly comfortable with having someone who has publically stated that the US should launce preemptive strikes on Iran and NK. Air superiority is an enabler, it doesn’t win wars all by itself. And if the thought is that the USA should actually drop nukes, and open the world to that possibility, that’s insanity on a whole new level. Mutually assured destruction has kept the option off the table. If it becomes a simple tactical weapon, then it’s the beginning of the end.
|
|
|
Post by Don Clark on Mar 23, 2018 11:05:22 GMT -5
If he scares the North Koreans into giving up their belligerence and nukes, power to him. But I don’t feel terribly comfortable with having someone who has publically stated that the US should launce preemptive strikes on Iran and NK. Air superiority is an enabler, it doesn’t win wars all by itself. And if the thought is that the USA should actually drop nukes, and open the world to that possibility, that’s insanity on a whole new level. Mutually assured destruction has kept the option off the table. If it becomes a simple tactical weapon, then it’s the beginning of the end. Sadly enough, that's all quite true.
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Mar 23, 2018 11:23:03 GMT -5
Is that the dude with the really white mustache and dark hair? Yes. The Wilford Brimley if the dark side.
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Mar 23, 2018 11:26:13 GMT -5
I've heard Bolton hear and there. He doesn't strike me as all that different than any of the rest of those guys. "Lead us into war"? We already are at war. We've been in a continuous war for years. We've got so accustomed to being at war, we don't remember what not being at war is even like. When was the last time a full month went by without some element of the US armed forces firing a shot against an enemy? We make jokes about war, because war is funny. I remember when Gary Johnson was mocked and ridiculed for not knowing anything about Aleppo. (Generally by the same people who bombed the shit out of Libya, and in the process turning it into the Mediterranean paradise that it is today.) I bet John Bolton can tell you you all about Aleppo. Yeah, Bolton is a bit more hawkish than most. He believes in a first strike against N Korea. He still thinks the war in Iraq was a good idea. Positions that are neither conservative nor wise.
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Mar 23, 2018 11:35:25 GMT -5
If he scares the North Koreans into giving up their belligerence and nukes, power to him. But I don’t feel terribly comfortable with having someone who has publically stated that the US should launce preemptive strikes on Iran and NK. Air superiority is an enabler, it doesn’t win wars all by itself. And if the thought is that the USA should actually drop nukes, and open the world to that possibility, that’s insanity on a whole new level. Mutually assured destruction has kept the option off the table. If it becomes a simple tactical weapon, then it’s the beginning of the end. Fear is why North Korea has a nuclear program. They believe that without that deterrent, the US would overthrow their government, and they’re probably right. You can’t scare straight, what was scared crooked. And all of that only matters if Bolton is bluffing. If he and Trump actually struck NK first, yes, they would end both the NK nuclear program and the Kim regime, but they would also start a nuclear war in the Pacific rim, destroying the world’s economy in the process. A first strike against NK is one of Bolton’s dumbest ideas, and that’s really saying something.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Mar 23, 2018 11:41:43 GMT -5
If he scares the North Koreans into giving up their belligerence and nukes, power to him. But I don’t feel terribly comfortable with having someone who has publically stated that the US should launce preemptive strikes on Iran and NK. Air superiority is an enabler, it doesn’t win wars all by itself. And if the thought is that the USA should actually drop nukes, and open the world to that possibility, that’s insanity on a whole new level. Mutually assured destruction has kept the option off the table. If it becomes a simple tactical weapon, then it’s the beginning of the end. Fear is why North Korea has a nuclear program. They believe that without that deterrent, the US would overthrow their government, and they’re probably right. You can’t scare straight, what was scared crooked. And all of that only matters if Bolton is bluffing. If he and Trump actually struck NK first, yes, they would end both the NK nuclear program and the Kim regime, but they would also start a nuclear war in the Pacific rim, destroying the world’s economy in the process. A first strike against NK is one of Bolton’s dumbest ideas, and that’s really saying something. I believe it was the fear that Reagan was crazy enough to push the button that took down the USSR. Keeping it down has proven to be a bigger problem since Putin.
|
|
|
Post by TKennedy on Mar 23, 2018 11:46:09 GMT -5
We'll live through it. It's easy to be bellicose when the buck does not stop with you.
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Mar 23, 2018 15:49:37 GMT -5
Fear is why North Korea has a nuclear program. They believe that without that deterrent, the US would overthrow their government, and they’re probably right. You can’t scare straight, what was scared crooked. And all of that only matters if Bolton is bluffing. If he and Trump actually struck NK first, yes, they would end both the NK nuclear program and the Kim regime, but they would also start a nuclear war in the Pacific rim, destroying the world’s economy in the process. A first strike against NK is one of Bolton’s dumbest ideas, and that’s really saying something. I believe it was the fear that Reagan was crazy enough to push the button that took down the USSR. Keeping it down has proven to be a bigger problem since Putin. We’ll disagree on that one. I believe it was economics, and good leadership (Gorbachev) who opened up the USSR, and the opening slowly crumbled the empire. We do love to take credit for it, though.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Mar 23, 2018 16:43:52 GMT -5
I've seen South Korea and the DMZ first-hand as a reporter, and have written about the geo-politics of it, and I think I have a pretty good idea of the passions on both sides that threaten to boil over any day, as well as the carnage that a preemptive strike could entail.
At the same time, it's universally accepted that the U.S. policy of stopping the NK nuclear program through sanctions and diplomacy hasn't worked. And now here we are on the brink of a new world featuring a nuclear armed NK and a generation of NKs who yearn for the destruction of the United States.
The binary question is, can we live with that, or not.
There are good arguments on both sides. But I come down to the belief that sooner or later, we will resume our war with NK. The later it happens, the more likely they will be able to destroy large parts of the United States with their ever advancing nuclear capability.
If that is true, the obvious course would be to strike now. But not necessarily like John Bolton advocates.
I'm intrigued by the "bloody nose" scenario. As much abuse as that idea has taken, look at it from NK's side. Let's say the U.S. drew a line in the sand, warned NK not to do any more test detonations or missile launches. Like Kennedy warned Khrushchev not to land any more missiles in Cuba. Let's say they did another test anyway, and we were as good as our word, and responded with enough enough force to take out the offending launch/blast site.
Some North Koreans would die. But what would Kim do? Launch an all-out strike against South Korea and whatever U.S. assets he could hit? Knowing that such an attack would surely mean a massive U.S. response that would end in his personal destruction, and that of his regime? The very threat that apparently drives his whole nuclear strategy as a defense against?
The answer, I believe, is no. So what would he do? Launch a tit-for-tat response, kill some Americans? In full knowledge that such an act would probably trigger the same kind of fullscale U.S. attack that would destroy him?
Yes, I know about the dynamics of escalation, and how uncontrollable such a situation can quickly become. I know how some who ask that the "bloody nose" option be considered are deemed in some quarters to be war-mongers.
No doubt the option is fraught with peril. But so is doing nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Mar 23, 2018 16:58:25 GMT -5
Afterthought 1: The above doesn't mean I'm not scared silly by the prospect of the duo of Trump & Bolton managing such a crisis.
Afterthought 2: I wish people would stop saying there are no good options. Everybody knows that.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Mar 23, 2018 17:31:00 GMT -5
...You can’t scare straight what was scared crooked... That's pretty good, Tim. Think I just might borrow it.
|
|
|
Post by Village Idiot on Mar 23, 2018 20:21:12 GMT -5
Afterthought 1: The above doesn't mean I'm not scared silly by the prospect of the duo of Trump & Bolton managing such a crisis. Especially since there’ll most likely be a new security advisor by early June.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Mar 23, 2018 20:36:40 GMT -5
Iraq was perhaps the first time our country attacked another country that hadn't done anything to us, but might. I thought it was a very bad idea. I still do.
|
|