Bolton In, McMaster Out!

a reply to: burdman30ott6

SO long as it is my country's boot on the throat of the world, I don't need to worry about the rest of the world getting upitty and placing any boots across my throat.

That's how you make enemies, which feeds the endless cycle of money spent on nothing.

Funny how plenty of other western countries don't spend near as much as us but never get attacked or involved in silly wars.

But I guess some people get raging you know what's from knowing we're "militarily superior"... Yet we can't win an effing war against a country with equipment from the eighties (at best).

Sounds super badass.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

The US status as the controller of the global reserve currency puts a target on the country's back which other western nations don't possess. I think the fact that the US has been slow to pander to non-western demands than most European countries plays a factor.

America fought Iraq and Afghanistan in a very stupid manner. "Kinder gentler" war is a guarantee for losing a war. Had we actually fought those wars to win the war, claim spoils, and then extract we'd be having a much different conversation right now. I would not support ground troops or occupation in North Korea. We can eliminate the midget dictator and North Korea's threat to the US without putting a single American boot on the ground.

originally posted by: amazing
Bolton is no diplomat. And that's what you need. He's a terrible choice. He's worse than any other choice Trump could have made. Strongly dislike Bolton.

Actually he was the US ambassador to the United Nations so yes, he would be a Diplomat. Just as the President is the chief Diplomat for the Uni9ted States.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

No nation besides China would be upset if we bombed Pyongyang. Quite a few would applaud the move (Japan and S. Korea...allies of ours).

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: amazing
Bolton is no diplomat. And that's what you need. He's a terrible choice. He's worse than any other choice Trump could have made. Strongly dislike Bolton.

What's encouraging is that most of the Liberals along with the people who have been wrong about mostly everything over the past 10 years, are coming out against John Bolton.

I'm not wrong here, nor totally liberal. I voted Libertarian the last election. What I don't like about Bolton, is that he takes us back to the Bush era diplomacy. Invade country first ask questions later. He was instrumental in invading Iraq and leaving that country in shambles. That's not the kind of guy we want shaping our foreign policy is it? Wouldn't it be better to keep our solders home instead of getting thousands of them killed and blown up in the middle east?

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: CriticalStinker
We can eliminate the midget dictator and North Korea's threat to the US without putting a single American boot on the ground.

Wasn't the same thing said about Vietnam (in the beginning)?

I feel like I've heard several recent military experts/generals say even that to win a war it will always require boots on the ground.

originally posted by: amazing
Wouldn't it be better to keep our solders home instead of getting thousands of them killed and blown up in the middle east?

Ask Neville Chamberlain...

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: amazing
Bolton is no diplomat. And that's what you need. He's a terrible choice. He's worse than any other choice Trump could have made. Strongly dislike Bolton.

Actually he was the US ambassador to the United Nations so yes, he would be a Diplomat. Just as the President is the chief Diplomat for the Uni9ted States.

In the literal sense, yes he was a diplomat. But looking back at his past, he generally had no intention of diplomacy, only pushing the US agenda. I realize that everyone in his position does that to a degree, but with Bolton there is no room for negotiation, rapport building, building stronger relations with other countries, etc. He's all about war. do some research on him.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: amazing
Wouldn't it be better to keep our solders home instead of getting thousands of them killed and blown up in the middle east?

Ask Neville Chamberlain...

Or ask Dick Cheney.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: amazing
Wouldn't it be better to keep our solders home instead of getting thousands of them killed and blown up in the middle east?

Ask Neville Chamberlain...

Or ask Dick Cheney.

When did Cheney ever advocate for isolationism and appeasement?

a reply to: pteridine

What kind of #ing delusional post is this?

Seriously, if you have opinions like these, keep them to yourself whilst the rest of us are thankful that no one of importance shares them.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: amazing
Wouldn't it be better to keep our solders home instead of getting thousands of them killed and blown up in the middle east?

Ask Neville Chamberlain...

Or ask Dick Cheney.

When did Cheney ever advocate for isolationism and appeasement?

The opposite of it, like Bolton. Start a war and invade a soverign nation. Not a good idea. We're past the colonial age, or should be. You like colonialism?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I'm leaning on you because I find your constant rhetoric about *casting other nations back a few decades* extremely disgusting because it demonstrates a callous disregard for innocent human life. You are a no different than the regimes you seem to oppose. And what makes your condoning mass slaughter of innocents even worse is that it's based on an ideology formed through propaganda. Even more disgusting is the fact you reside in a nation that has committed more evil — both internationally and domestically — in just the past 50 years than all nations combined. Yet, N.Korea is the bad guy...

So, again... what you foolishly called a strawman earlier comes into full play.

Your statements are so vague and you offer NOTHING but adjectives.

AGAIN: list some of those *policies* "which makes [others] sit back and accept reciprocal bad stuff from other countries."

Where's that mirror, now, eh...? List those policies. Don't skirt around it. You put that strawman argument on the table: so now let's EAT...

America killed North Koreans. OK, yup, sure did... that means I should sit here with my thumb up my ass listening to North Korea's threats and advocating against military action against North Korea because: Karma?

Another straw-man argument...

Listen, if your going to respond, do so within the proper context. Yeah...?

But, I will play your game, again...

Let's say your twisted ideology formed thru propaganda does manifest itself and the USA initiates a Korean war that kills up to, or exceeding a million civilians, followed by an Iranian war, which Bolton is also licking his chops for, that thoroughly wrecks that country while further destabilizing the South Pacific and ME like it did in Iraq and Libya (and attempting to do in SECULAR Syria):

Will there be an epic speech by the leader of the free-world about the dangers from other Rogue States?

After all, getting back to the topic:

"John Bolton didn't just lie about WMD's to promote the Iraq war. He stated, in 2015, that the Iraq war — which cost thousands of lives, wasted trillions of dollars, and ultimately spawned ISIS — was "worth it."

Seven years ago, the USA claimed they were invading Libya for “humanitarian” purposes—turning a country that had the highest standard of living in Africa into a war-torn failed state now ruled by slave-selling jihadists.They committed these crimes on the back of propaganda. The same propaganda by the same war-hawks you formed your world view from.

I DON'T CARE how many North Koreans the US has killed, this isn't a popularity contest nor is it a kindergarten class where tit for tat is forgiven in the name of parity. I am an American. SO long as it is my country's boot on the throat of the world, I don't need to worry about the rest of the world getting upitty and placing any boots across my throat.

This is one of the most nonsensical childish statements I have read and you have stated a lot of nonsensical childish ish. Your thought process expressed doesn't reflect a mature understanding of the world. It reflects real cowboy ish...

I am an American nationalist. My country isn't perfect, far from it, but on a global playing field I will defend what we do.

Keep drinking that kool-aid, boy.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: CriticalStinker

No nation besides China would be upset if we bombed Pyongyang. Quite a few would applaud the move (Japan and S. Korea...allies of ours).

That's simply not true. It's in everyone's best interest that North Korea stay in tact. Should the borders dissolve, who is going to absorb the refugees and economic disparity?

China, South Korea, and Japan. Three thriving economies that would be hard pressed assimilating the product of generations being brain washed.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: CriticalStinker

No nation besides China would be upset if we bombed Pyongyang. Quite a few would applaud the move (Japan and S. Korea...allies of ours).

That's simply not true. It's in everyone's best interest that North Korea stay in tact. Should the borders dissolve, who is going to absorb the refugees and economic disparity?

China, South Korea, and Japan. Three thriving economies that would be hard pressed assimilating the product of generations being brain washed.

Yeah and that's all the world needs is millions of more refugees. We already have a huge problem with that from African and the middle east that many countries can't deal with. All three of those countries would be hit really hard. Japan and South Korea would ask for and recieve billions of dollars in aid from the us in particular.

a reply to: Wayfarer

Vietnam was part of an effort to economically "break" the Soviet Union via a proxy war. The US fought a war with the intent of stalemating as long as possible and it got away from them. The Korean War was similar, albeit more successful for the US. What we're talking about right now is different. While China is certainly financially assisting the Norks, an action against Pyongyang would (should) have the lone goal of eradicating the Kim Jong genetics from Earth.

I've said this before, but ultimately the only roadblock to acting in North Korea is China. The US can very, very easily rectify that by simply contacting Xi on the downlow and telling him "Have troops ready to occupy your new land mass within the next hour" and then start shelling Ryongsong palace and every Nork government facility. Then allow China to lay claim to North Korea entirely. America's problem would be solved fully and the task of stabilizing North Korea would be entirely on China's shoulders. Keep the DMZ as a buffer between China and South Korea.

a reply to: Xcathdra

No, the Russian media presented it first, and then the US media got the story after.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

If they don't like it they are free to take action. But they won't...because that dominance is very real, and very deadly.

I agree. The US military industrial complex is nothing to f# with. This is why I labelled those *threats* earlier in my response to the other moderator: "sticks and stones".

We can discuss philosophy here all day.

I'm not discussing philosophy. I'm discussing geopolitics. The other moderator was discussing philosophy...

But it'll never matter in reality.

That is very true. This is why I lean on arm-chair propaganda spewing pundits who condone killing civilians who have western media news sources to thank as their only source of information. Like the other moderator...

My passions arise from witnessing certain things as I travelled to places around the world —both developed and under developed. I've gone to places where I've seen suffering and after a while began to investigate what the cause of it was. This lead me to other ventures that I won't discuss here. In other words: what I discuss here concerning geopolitics DOES matter in reality...outside of social media...to ME. And people who possess certain mindsets such as the other "moderator" are the ones who help perpetuate the evils of imperialism. After all, somebody's got to pull the trigger...

The reality is we are strong, they are weak...and they should act like it based on the way human diplomacy works.

Your concept of *human diplomacy* differs from my own. Based on that last statement of yours: Where was there human diplomacy in the sham *intervention* of Libya or Iraq or Syria or Vietnam or you get the picture. Just because America is strong does not give America the right to commit the evils it has committed to date.

However, this former US special forces vet gets what human diplomacy is all about in hindsight:

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Question.

What did Bolton do to NK in the years with the Bush administration? I recall Iraq and WMD's but nothing much in the way of NK.

originally posted by: RMFX1
a reply to: pteridine

What kind of #ing delusional post is this?

Seriously, if you have opinions like these, keep them to yourself whilst the rest of us are thankful that no one of importance shares them.

What a wonderful reply. So thoughtful and reasoned and you also speak for "the rest of us" which must be your cat and tapeworm.
I did find an example of a really delusional post and it seems that some dolt hacked your account and posted it under your name. It had to do with a Russian spy being attacked with a nerve agent.

"I'm wondering if it's possible that Skirpal accidentally poisoned himself."

I found another of the hackers quotes to be more pertinent to his postings.

"Seriously, if you have opinions like these, keep them to yourself whilst the rest of us are thankful that no one of importance shares them."