There are 48 comments.

1. Inactive
   Cato Rand

   @CatoRand

   8:39 AM EDT ⋅ May 25, 2018

   blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

   Cato Rand (View Comment):

   blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

   I want peace, but if we have to use our “massive and powerful” nuclear arsenal, that’s mostly North Korea’s problem.

   Because shattering that taboo won’t come back to haunt us. No way.

   I said it’s “mostly North Korea’s problem”. How could anyone disagree with that? They’ll be dead. We’ll be alive. Which is better?

   BTW, the fact that a few people who think like me are in the White House now is the only reason the Norks are anywhere near a negotiating table. It’s called a credible threat. Look it up.

   If you think most of us will be alive after we incinerate North Korea, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.  It’s not just the Norks who will respond in kind.  It is a client state of China.  You don’t launch a nuclear attack in the belief that the damage will be contained.  Not unless you’re a bleeding loon anyway.

   I’ve got no problem with credible threats, and no brief for Obama’s policy of preemptive surrender.  But Trump’s “fire and fury” BS isn’t the reason Rocket Man wants to talk.  That part of the pressure campaign is empty bluster and everyone on earth (except you it appears) knows that, for the reason stated in my paragraph above.

   What’s got Rocket Man’s nuts in a vice is the economic pressure.  He runs a slave state by paying off a class of elites with western luxuries, a practice which can only be maintained with hard cash he generates from illicit economic activity.  Cut off that cash, and he’s in serious danger of having his own generals string him up to a lamppost.  He knows that and that’s what he fears.

   His father and grandfather managed to use talks like this to extract not only relief from sanctions, but economic aid they could steal.  He’s hoping for a repeat of that performance.  From where he sits, why not?  I am hopeful that Trump will learn from his predecessors’ failures and not fall for that.  That’s the “credible threat” – we’re going to keep your balls in a vice until your kleptocracy collapses unless you give us what we want.  Look it up.

2. Inactive
   blood thirsty neocon

   @bloodthirstyneocon

   3:46 PM EDT ⋅ May 25, 2018

   Cato Rand (View Comment):

   blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

   Cato Rand (View Comment):

   blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

   I want peace, but if we have to use our “massive and powerful” nuclear arsenal, that’s mostly North Korea’s problem.

   Because shattering that taboo won’t come back to haunt us. No way.

   I said it’s “mostly North Korea’s problem”. How could anyone disagree with that? They’ll be dead. We’ll be alive. Which is better?

   BTW, the fact that a few people who think like me are in the White House now is the only reason the Norks are anywhere near a negotiating table. It’s called a credible threat. Look it up.

   If you think most of us will be alive after we incinerate North Korea, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. It’s not just the Norks who will respond in kind. It is a client state of China. You don’t launch a nuclear attack in the belief that the damage will be contained. Not unless you’re a bleeding loon anyway.

   No one except you thinks that China will respond to a nuclear strike on North Korea by launching against us. Xi is not that stupid.

3. Coolidge
   Max Ledoux

   @Max

   3:49 PM EDT ⋅ May 25, 2018

   I don’t think China wants to get into an actual war with us. They’ll do clandestine things against our interests, but if we dropped a nuke on North Korea (if!) then I doubt that China would respond in kind. After all, they wouldn’t want to break the taboo of using nuclear weapons.

4. Thatcher
   Bryan G. Stephens

   @BryanGStephens

   

   5:42 PM EDT ⋅ May 25, 2018

   Cato Rand (View Comment):

   Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

   Cato Rand (View Comment):

   blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

   I want peace, but if we have to use our “massive and powerful” nuclear arsenal, that’s mostly North Korea’s problem.

   Because shattering that taboo won’t come back to haunt us. No way.

   Shattering what taboo?

   Yes, the taboo against using a nuclear arsenal.

   Um, not to put to fine a point on it, but hasn’t that happened already ?

5. Thatcher
   Bryan G. Stephens

   @BryanGStephens

   

   5:44 PM EDT ⋅ May 25, 2018

   blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

   Cato Rand (View Comment):

   blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

   Cato Rand (View Comment):

   blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

   I want peace, but if we have to use our “massive and powerful” nuclear arsenal, that’s mostly North Korea’s problem.

   Because shattering that taboo won’t come back to haunt us. No way.

   I said it’s “mostly North Korea’s problem”. How could anyone disagree with that? They’ll be dead. We’ll be alive. Which is better?

   BTW, the fact that a few people who think like me are in the White House now is the only reason the Norks are anywhere near a negotiating table. It’s called a credible threat. Look it up.

   If you think most of us will be alive after we incinerate North Korea, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. It’s not just the Norks who will respond in kind. It is a client state of China. You don’t launch a nuclear attack in the belief that the damage will be contained. Not unless you’re a bleeding loon anyway.

   No one except you thinks that China will respond to a nuclear strike on North Korea by launching against us. Xi is not that stupid.

   Yep. Really bizarre thinking. 

6. Inactive
   blood thirsty neocon

   @bloodthirstyneocon

   9:23 PM EDT ⋅ May 25, 2018

   Cato Rand (View Comment):

   blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

   Cato Rand (View Comment):

   blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

   I want peace, but if we have to use our “massive and powerful” nuclear arsenal, that’s mostly North Korea’s problem.

   Because shattering that taboo won’t come back to haunt us. No way.

   I said it’s “mostly North Korea’s problem”. How could anyone disagree with that? They’ll be dead. We’ll be alive. Which is better?

   BTW, the fact that a few people who think like me are in the White House now is the only reason the Norks are anywhere near a negotiating table. It’s called a credible threat. Look it up.

   If you think most of us will be alive after we incinerate North Korea, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. It’s not just the Norks who will respond in kind. It is a client state of China. You don’t launch a nuclear attack in the belief that the damage will be contained. Not unless you’re a bleeding loon anyway.

   I’ve got no problem with credible threats, and no brief for Obama’s policy of preemptive surrender. But Trump’s “fire and fury” BS isn’t the reason Rocket Man wants to talk. That part of the pressure campaign is empty bluster and everyone on earth (except you it appears) knows that, for the reason stated in my paragraph above.

   What’s got Rocket Man’s nuts in a vice is the economic pressure. He runs a slave state by paying off a class of elites with western luxuries, a practice which can only be maintained with hard cash he generates from illicit economic activity. Cut off that cash, and he’s in serious danger of having his own generals string him up to a lamppost. He knows that and that’s what he fears.

   His father and grandfather managed to use talks like this to extract not only relief from sanctions, but economic aid they could steal. He’s hoping for a repeat of that performance. From where he sits, why not? I am hopeful that Trump will learn from his predecessors’ failures and not fall for that. That’s the “credible threat” – we’re going to keep your balls in a vice until your kleptocracy collapses unless you give us what we want. Look it up.

   I guess you libertarians think that a credible threat of annihilation is unnecessary. Just let the free market sort it out, right?

7. Member
   Jamie Lockett

   @JamieLockett

   9:52 PM EDT ⋅ May 25, 2018

   blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

   Cato Rand (View Comment):

   blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

   Cato Rand (View Comment):

   blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

   I want peace, but if we have to use our “massive and powerful” nuclear arsenal, that’s mostly North Korea’s problem.

   Because shattering that taboo won’t come back to haunt us. No way.

   I said it’s “mostly North Korea’s problem”. How could anyone disagree with that? They’ll be dead. We’ll be alive. Which is better?

   BTW, the fact that a few people who think like me are in the White House now is the only reason the Norks are anywhere near a negotiating table. It’s called a credible threat. Look it up.

   If you think most of us will be alive after we incinerate North Korea, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. It’s not just the Norks who will respond in kind. It is a client state of China. You don’t launch a nuclear attack in the belief that the damage will be contained. Not unless you’re a bleeding loon anyway.

   I’ve got no problem with credible threats, and no brief for Obama’s policy of preemptive surrender. But Trump’s “fire and fury” BS isn’t the reason Rocket Man wants to talk. That part of the pressure campaign is empty bluster and everyone on earth (except you it appears) knows that, for the reason stated in my paragraph above.

   What’s got Rocket Man’s nuts in a vice is the economic pressure. He runs a slave state by paying off a class of elites with western luxuries, a practice which can only be maintained with hard cash he generates from illicit economic activity. Cut off that cash, and he’s in serious danger of having his own generals string him up to a lamppost. He knows that and that’s what he fears.

   His father and grandfather managed to use talks like this to extract not only relief from sanctions, but economic aid they could steal. He’s hoping for a repeat of that performance. From where he sits, why not? I am hopeful that Trump will learn from his predecessors’ failures and not fall for that. That’s the “credible threat” – we’re going to keep your balls in a vice until your kleptocracy collapses unless you give us what we want. Look it up.

   I guess you libertarians think that a credible threat of annihilation is unnecessary. Just let the free market sort it out, right?

   This site would be better off if people stopped with the group identity politics. 

8. Thatcher
   Bryan G. Stephens

   @BryanGStephens

   

   4:51 AM EDT ⋅ May 26, 2018

   Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

   blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

   Cato Rand (View Comment):

   blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

   Cato Rand (View Comment):

   blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

   I want peace, but if we have to use our “massive and powerful” nuclear arsenal, that’s mostly North Korea’s problem.

   Because shattering that taboo won’t come back to haunt us. No way.

   I said it’s “mostly North Korea’s problem”. How could anyone disagree with that? They’ll be dead. We’ll be alive. Which is better?

   BTW, the fact that a few people who think like me are in the White House now is the only reason the Norks are anywhere near a negotiating table. It’s called a credible threat. Look it up.

   If you think most of us will be alive after we incinerate North Korea, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. It’s not just the Norks who will respond in kind. It is a client state of China. You don’t launch a nuclear attack in the belief that the damage will be contained. Not unless you’re a bleeding loon anyway.

   I’ve got no problem with credible threats, and no brief for Obama’s policy of preemptive surrender. But Trump’s “fire and fury” BS isn’t the reason Rocket Man wants to talk. That part of the pressure campaign is empty bluster and everyone on earth (except you it appears) knows that, for the reason stated in my paragraph above.

   What’s got Rocket Man’s nuts in a vice is the economic pressure. He runs a slave state by paying off a class of elites with western luxuries, a practice which can only be maintained with hard cash he generates from illicit economic activity. Cut off that cash, and he’s in serious danger of having his own generals string him up to a lamppost. He knows that and that’s what he fears.

   His father and grandfather managed to use talks like this to extract not only relief from sanctions, but economic aid they could steal. He’s hoping for a repeat of that performance. From where he sits, why not? I am hopeful that Trump will learn from his predecessors’ failures and not fall for that. That’s the “credible threat” – we’re going to keep your balls in a vice until your kleptocracy collapses unless you give us what we want. Look it up.

   I guess you libertarians think that a credible threat of annihilation is unnecessary. Just let the free market sort it out, right?

   This site would be better off if people stopped with the group identity politics.

   Wait, lumping people into identity groups based on their political identity makes sense. Democrats support abortion and higher taxes and social justice. Fair to say if someone is a Democrat, they support that. 

   Libertarians are funny. Every time you pin them down, they run away. Either saying you are a libertarian has meaning for you political identity or it does not. 

9. Inactive
   blood thirsty neocon

   @bloodthirstyneocon

   7:17 AM EDT ⋅ May 26, 2018

   Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

   blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

   Cato Rand (View Comment):

   blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

   Cato Rand (View Comment):

   blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

   I want peace, but if we have to use our “massive and powerful” nuclear arsenal, that’s mostly North Korea’s problem.

   Because shattering that taboo won’t come back to haunt us. No way.

   I said it’s “mostly North Korea’s problem”. How could anyone disagree with that? They’ll be dead. We’ll be alive. Which is better?

   BTW, the fact that a few people who think like me are in the White House now is the only reason the Norks are anywhere near a negotiating table. It’s called a credible threat. Look it up.

   If you think most of us will be alive after we incinerate North Korea, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. It’s not just the Norks who will respond in kind. It is a client state of China. You don’t launch a nuclear attack in the belief that the damage will be contained. Not unless you’re a bleeding loon anyway.

   I’ve got no problem with credible threats, and no brief for Obama’s policy of preemptive surrender. But Trump’s “fire and fury” BS isn’t the reason Rocket Man wants to talk. That part of the pressure campaign is empty bluster and everyone on earth (except you it appears) knows that, for the reason stated in my paragraph above.

   What’s got Rocket Man’s nuts in a vice is the economic pressure. He runs a slave state by paying off a class of elites with western luxuries, a practice which can only be maintained with hard cash he generates from illicit economic activity. Cut off that cash, and he’s in serious danger of having his own generals string him up to a lamppost. He knows that and that’s what he fears.

   His father and grandfather managed to use talks like this to extract not only relief from sanctions, but economic aid they could steal. He’s hoping for a repeat of that performance. From where he sits, why not? I am hopeful that Trump will learn from his predecessors’ failures and not fall for that. That’s the “credible threat” – we’re going to keep your balls in a vice until your kleptocracy collapses unless you give us what we want. Look it up.

   I guess you libertarians think that a credible threat of annihilation is unnecessary. Just let the free market sort it out, right?

   This site would be better off if people stopped with the group identity politics.

   I’m debating ideas. Either libertarianism applies to foreign policy or it doesn’t. I say it doesn’t.

10. Member
    Jamie Lockett

    @JamieLockett

    9:17 AM EDT ⋅ May 26, 2018

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    Cato Rand (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    Cato Rand (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    I want peace, but if we have to use our “massive and powerful” nuclear arsenal, that’s mostly North Korea’s problem.

    Because shattering that taboo won’t come back to haunt us. No way.

    I said it’s “mostly North Korea’s problem”. How could anyone disagree with that? They’ll be dead. We’ll be alive. Which is better?

    BTW, the fact that a few people who think like me are in the White House now is the only reason the Norks are anywhere near a negotiating table. It’s called a credible threat. Look it up.

    If you think most of us will be alive after we incinerate North Korea, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. It’s not just the Norks who will respond in kind. It is a client state of China. You don’t launch a nuclear attack in the belief that the damage will be contained. Not unless you’re a bleeding loon anyway.

    I’ve got no problem with credible threats, and no brief for Obama’s policy of preemptive surrender. But Trump’s “fire and fury” BS isn’t the reason Rocket Man wants to talk. That part of the pressure campaign is empty bluster and everyone on earth (except you it appears) knows that, for the reason stated in my paragraph above.

    What’s got Rocket Man’s nuts in a vice is the economic pressure. He runs a slave state by paying off a class of elites with western luxuries, a practice which can only be maintained with hard cash he generates from illicit economic activity. Cut off that cash, and he’s in serious danger of having his own generals string him up to a lamppost. He knows that and that’s what he fears.

    His father and grandfather managed to use talks like this to extract not only relief from sanctions, but economic aid they could steal. He’s hoping for a repeat of that performance. From where he sits, why not? I am hopeful that Trump will learn from his predecessors’ failures and not fall for that. That’s the “credible threat” – we’re going to keep your balls in a vice until your kleptocracy collapses unless you give us what we want. Look it up.

    I guess you libertarians think that a credible threat of annihilation is unnecessary. Just let the free market sort it out, right?

    This site would be better off if people stopped with the group identity politics.

    Wait, lumping people into identity groups based on their political identity makes sense. Democrats support abortion and higher taxes and social justice. Fair to say if someone is a Democrat, they support that.

    Libertarians are funny. Every time you pin them down, they run away. Either saying you are a libertarian has meaning for you political identity or it does not.

    There are several libertarians on this site that would not agree with the statement attributed to libertarians hence your group indenture politics has failed. 

11. Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens

    @BryanGStephens

    

    10:46 AM EDT ⋅ May 26, 2018

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    Cato Rand (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    Cato Rand (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    I want peace, but if we have to use our “massive and powerful” nuclear arsenal, that’s mostly North Korea’s problem.

    Because shattering that taboo won’t come back to haunt us. No way.

    I said it’s “mostly North Korea’s problem”. How could anyone disagree with that? They’ll be dead. We’ll be alive. Which is better?

    BTW, the fact that a few people who think like me are in the White House now is the only reason the Norks are anywhere near a negotiating table. It’s called a credible threat. Look it up.

    If you think most of us will be alive after we incinerate North Korea, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. It’s not just the Norks who will respond in kind. It is a client state of China. You don’t launch a nuclear attack in the belief that the damage will be contained. Not unless you’re a bleeding loon anyway.

    I’ve got no problem with credible threats, and no brief for Obama’s policy of preemptive surrender. But Trump’s “fire and fury” BS isn’t the reason Rocket Man wants to talk. That part of the pressure campaign is empty bluster and everyone on earth (except you it appears) knows that, for the reason stated in my paragraph above.

    What’s got Rocket Man’s nuts in a vice is the economic pressure. He runs a slave state by paying off a class of elites with western luxuries, a practice which can only be maintained with hard cash he generates from illicit economic activity. Cut off that cash, and he’s in serious danger of having his own generals string him up to a lamppost. He knows that and that’s what he fears.

    His father and grandfather managed to use talks like this to extract not only relief from sanctions, but economic aid they could steal. He’s hoping for a repeat of that performance. From where he sits, why not? I am hopeful that Trump will learn from his predecessors’ failures and not fall for that. That’s the “credible threat” – we’re going to keep your balls in a vice until your kleptocracy collapses unless you give us what we want. Look it up.

    I guess you libertarians think that a credible threat of annihilation is unnecessary. Just let the free market sort it out, right?

    This site would be better off if people stopped with the group identity politics.

    Wait, lumping people into identity groups based on their political identity makes sense. Democrats support abortion and higher taxes and social justice. Fair to say if someone is a Democrat, they support that.

    Libertarians are funny. Every time you pin them down, they run away. Either saying you are a libertarian has meaning for you political identity or it does not.

    There are several libertarians on this site that would not agree with the statement attributed to libertarians hence your group indenture politics has failed.

    No true Libertarian arguement. Knew it was coming.

12. Member
    Jamie Lockett

    @JamieLockett

    10:52 AM EDT ⋅ May 26, 2018

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    Cato Rand (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    Cato Rand (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    I want peace, but if we have to use our “massive and powerful” nuclear arsenal, that’s mostly North Korea’s problem.

    Because shattering that taboo won’t come back to haunt us. No way.

    I said it’s “mostly North Korea’s problem”. How could anyone disagree with that? They’ll be dead. We’ll be alive. Which is better?

    BTW, the fact that a few people who think like me are in the White House now is the only reason the Norks are anywhere near a negotiating table. It’s called a credible threat. Look it up.

    If you think most of us will be alive after we incinerate North Korea, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. It’s not just the Norks who will respond in kind. It is a client state of China. You don’t launch a nuclear attack in the belief that the damage will be contained. Not unless you’re a bleeding loon anyway.

    I’ve got no problem with credible threats, and no brief for Obama’s policy of preemptive surrender. But Trump’s “fire and fury” BS isn’t the reason Rocket Man wants to talk. That part of the pressure campaign is empty bluster and everyone on earth (except you it appears) knows that, for the reason stated in my paragraph above.

    What’s got Rocket Man’s nuts in a vice is the economic pressure. He runs a slave state by paying off a class of elites with western luxuries, a practice which can only be maintained with hard cash he generates from illicit economic activity. Cut off that cash, and he’s in serious danger of having his own generals string him up to a lamppost. He knows that and that’s what he fears.

    His father and grandfather managed to use talks like this to extract not only relief from sanctions, but economic aid they could steal. He’s hoping for a repeat of that performance. From where he sits, why not? I am hopeful that Trump will learn from his predecessors’ failures and not fall for that. That’s the “credible threat” – we’re going to keep your balls in a vice until your kleptocracy collapses unless you give us what we want. Look it up.

    I guess you libertarians think that a credible threat of annihilation is unnecessary. Just let the free market sort it out, right?

    This site would be better off if people stopped with the group identity politics.

    Wait, lumping people into identity groups based on their political identity makes sense. Democrats support abortion and higher taxes and social justice. Fair to say if someone is a Democrat, they support that.

    Libertarians are funny. Every time you pin them down, they run away. Either saying you are a libertarian has meaning for you political identity or it does not.

    There are several libertarians on this site that would not agree with the statement attributed to libertarians hence your group indenture politics has failed.

    No true Libertarian arguement. Knew it was coming.

    I’m sorry for treating people as indaviduals with their own ideas.

    More to the point: how had your group identity politics furthered this discussion. I’m trying to show you that I as a libertarian agree with you on how to handle the NorKs nuclear threat and instead you’d rather spit in my face.

13. Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens

    @BryanGStephens

    

    11:41 AM EDT ⋅ May 26, 2018

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    Cato Rand (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    Cato Rand (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    I want peace, but if we have to use our “massive and powerful” nuclear arsenal, that’s mostly North Korea’s problem.

    Because shattering that taboo won’t come back to haunt us. No way.

    I said it’s “mostly North Korea’s problem”. How could anyone disagree with that? They’ll be dead. We’ll be alive. Which is better?

    BTW, the fact that a few people who think like me are in the White House now is the only reason the Norks are anywhere near a negotiating table. It’s called a credible threat. Look it up.

    If you think most of us will be alive after we incinerate North Korea, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. It’s not just the Norks who will respond in kind. It is a client state of China. You don’t launch a nuclear attack in the belief that the damage will be contained. Not unless you’re a bleeding loon anyway.

    I’ve got no problem with credible threats, and no brief for Obama’s policy of preemptive surrender. But Trump’s “fire and fury” BS isn’t the reason Rocket Man wants to talk. That part of the pressure campaign is empty bluster and everyone on earth (except you it appears) knows that, for the reason stated in my paragraph above.

    What’s got Rocket Man’s nuts in a vice is the economic pressure. He runs a slave state by paying off a class of elites with western luxuries, a practice which can only be maintained with hard cash he generates from illicit economic activity. Cut off that cash, and he’s in serious danger of having his own generals string him up to a lamppost. He knows that and that’s what he fears.

    His father and grandfather managed to use talks like this to extract not only relief from sanctions, but economic aid they could steal. He’s hoping for a repeat of that performance. From where he sits, why not? I am hopeful that Trump will learn from his predecessors’ failures and not fall for that. That’s the “credible threat” – we’re going to keep your balls in a vice until your kleptocracy collapses unless you give us what we want. Look it up.

    I guess you libertarians think that a credible threat of annihilation is unnecessary. Just let the free market sort it out, right?

    This site would be better off if people stopped with the group identity politics.

    Wait, lumping people into identity groups based on their political identity makes sense. Democrats support abortion and higher taxes and social justice. Fair to say if someone is a Democrat, they support that.

    Libertarians are funny. Every time you pin them down, they run away. Either saying you are a libertarian has meaning for you political identity or it does not.

    There are several libertarians on this site that would not agree with the statement attributed to libertarians hence your group indenture politics has failed.

    No true Libertarian arguement. Knew it was coming.

    I’m sorry for treating people as indaviduals with their own ideas.

    More to the point: how had your group identity politics furthered this discussion. I’m trying to show you that I as a libertarian agree with you on how to handle the NorKs nuclear threat and instead you’d rather spit in my face.

    Oh, and saying you were tired of identity politics in the thread was not intended as a dig? Sorry man, but, considering how that is the insult de jure against Trump supporters these days, you should have figured it people would react. Maybe you want to reword it?

14. Member
    Jamie Lockett

    @JamieLockett

    12:56 PM EDT ⋅ May 26, 2018

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    Cato Rand (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    Cato Rand (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    I want peace, but if we have to use our “massive and powerful” nuclear arsenal, that’s mostly North Korea’s problem.

    Because shattering that taboo won’t come back to haunt us. No way.

    I said it’s “mostly North Korea’s problem”. How could anyone disagree with that? They’ll be dead. We’ll be alive. Which is better?

    BTW, the fact that a few people who think like me are in the White House now is the only reason the Norks are anywhere near a negotiating table. It’s called a credible threat. Look it up.

    If you think most of us will be alive after we incinerate North Korea, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. It’s not just the Norks who will respond in kind. It is a client state of China. You don’t launch a nuclear attack in the belief that the damage will be contained. Not unless you’re a bleeding loon anyway.

    I’ve got no problem with credible threats, and no brief for Obama’s policy of preemptive surrender. But Trump’s “fire and fury” BS isn’t the reason Rocket Man wants to talk. That part of the pressure campaign is empty bluster and everyone on earth (except you it appears) knows that, for the reason stated in my paragraph above.

    What’s got Rocket Man’s nuts in a vice is the economic pressure. He runs a slave state by paying off a class of elites with western luxuries, a practice which can only be maintained with hard cash he generates from illicit economic activity. Cut off that cash, and he’s in serious danger of having his own generals string him up to a lamppost. He knows that and that’s what he fears.

    His father and grandfather managed to use talks like this to extract not only relief from sanctions, but economic aid they could steal. He’s hoping for a repeat of that performance. From where he sits, why not? I am hopeful that Trump will learn from his predecessors’ failures and not fall for that. That’s the “credible threat” – we’re going to keep your balls in a vice until your kleptocracy collapses unless you give us what we want. Look it up.

    I guess you libertarians think that a credible threat of annihilation is unnecessary. Just let the free market sort it out, right?

    This site would be better off if people stopped with the group identity politics.

    Wait, lumping people into identity groups based on their political identity makes sense. Democrats support abortion and higher taxes and social justice. Fair to say if someone is a Democrat, they support that.

    Libertarians are funny. Every time you pin them down, they run away. Either saying you are a libertarian has meaning for you political identity or it does not.

    There are several libertarians on this site that would not agree with the statement attributed to libertarians hence your group indenture politics has failed.

    No true Libertarian arguement. Knew it was coming.

    I’m sorry for treating people as indaviduals with their own ideas.

    More to the point: how had your group identity politics furthered this discussion. I’m trying to show you that I as a libertarian agree with you on how to handle the NorKs nuclear threat and instead you’d rather spit in my face.

    Oh, and saying you were tired of identity politics in the thread was not intended as a dig? Sorry man, but, considering how that is the insult de jure against Trump supporters these days, you should have figured it people would react. Maybe you want to reword it?

    Bryan not everything is about Trump or the chip on your shoulder. 

15. Member
    Kozak

    @Kozak

    

    10:07 AM EDT ⋅ May 27, 2018

    Cato Rand (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Cato Rand (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    I want peace, but if we have to use our “massive and powerful” nuclear arsenal, that’s mostly North Korea’s problem.

    Because shattering that taboo won’t come back to haunt us. No way.

    Shattering what taboo?

    Yes, the taboo against using a nuclear arsenal.

    Someone tell Hiroshima and Nagasaki it’s taboo.

16. Member
    Kozak

    @Kozak

    

    10:09 AM EDT ⋅ May 27, 2018

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    No one except you thinks that China will respond to a nuclear strike on North Korea by launching against us. Xi is not that stupid.

    Or suicidal.

17. Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens

    @BryanGStephens

    

    1:47 PM EDT ⋅ May 27, 2018

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    Bryan not everything is about Trump or the chip on your shoulder. 

    Chip, meet Log. 

    ;)

18. Inactive
    Cato Rand

    @CatoRand

    2:24 AM EDT ⋅ May 29, 2018

    Libertarianism has nothing to do with my point.  My point was an empirical claim – that the treat of total nuclear annihilation simply isn’t credible – for the reasons I stated at the outset.  Snark is not a response to that claim.  It’s just evidence that you don’t have one.