My letter to Donald Trump

originally posted by: Jefferton

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: underwerks

So it's Trump's fault if NK fire a nuke at you?

Okay then mate...

Considering history? Yes.


Sorry if you are too ignorant to get it.

If you're referring to the Korean war, Trump was about ten years old...

a reply to: yeahright

Lol, I thought it closed for a minute.
Good night bud.

originally posted by: Black_Fox

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: Black_Fox


You thinking?

I assumed you weren't.

As I didn't see you lay out a letter to the people, long before Trump, who put these wheels in motion. (Cough)(Clinton).

Don't pick and chose the blame.

Do research, look at the facts, make a smart argument, then return.

Till then

North Korea has had a nuclear research centre and a reactor from the 1960's in Yongbyon. In the 70's there was even an inspection agreement with IAEA. Beyond that most of the politics was between the two regions, and a rift over a denuclearization of the whole of Korea. So there are quite a few 'cough's' involved there long before Clinton. Forget the party politics for five minutes at least.

You read, yes?

How did you misss where I said "As I didn't see you lay out a letter to the people, long before Trump"

Yes, I mentioned Bill Clinton, as he was an example, but I stated "people" meaning more than one.

Like I said, leave out the politics, 'cough' we are talking about a regular asshole who is in a very privileged position way beyond anything you or I can do...AKA not a man of the people, that includes plenty you or I could consider quite wrong...that is a fact, especially if you or I should be affected by the wrongness. That behoves any President to have constraint in all his actions, knowing that he is above the ordinary people.
Instead this guy takes advantage of everything with abandon, and shiites on the people below.

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: Black_Fox

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: Black_Fox


You thinking?

I assumed you weren't.

As I didn't see you lay out a letter to the people, long before Trump, who put these wheels in motion. (Cough)(Clinton).

Don't pick and chose the blame.

Do research, look at the facts, make a smart argument, then return.

Till then

North Korea has had a nuclear research centre and a reactor from the 1960's in Yongbyon. In the 70's there was even an inspection agreement with IAEA. Beyond that most of the politics was between the two regions, and a rift over a denuclearization of the whole of Korea. So there are quite a few 'cough's' involved there long before Clinton. Forget the party politics for five minutes at least.

You read, yes?

How did you misss where I said "As I didn't see you lay out a letter to the people, long before Trump"

Yes, I mentioned Bill Clinton, as he was an example, but I stated "people" meaning more than one.

Like I said, leave out the politics, 'cough' we are talking about a regular asshole who is in a very privileged position way beyond anything you or I can do...AKA not a man of the people, that includes plenty you or I could consider quite wrong...that is a fact, especially if you or I should be affected by the wrongness. That behoves any President to have constraint in all his actions, knowing that he is above the ordinary people.
Instead this guy takes advantage of everything with abandon, and shiites on the people below.

You're talking about Kim right?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: rickymouse

he is irrational and just plain nuts

So is our tweeter in chief.

Well, I have to agree with that. They should suspend his tweeting account.

originally posted by: WUNK22
California is a sister sate to North Korea I think? Their both run by dictators, Lil Kimmy, and governor Moonbeam a reply to: 3daysgone

Yeah and they both really hate Trump. I mean like "really" hate him.

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: Black_Fox

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: Black_Fox


You thinking?

I assumed you weren't.

As I didn't see you lay out a letter to the people, long before Trump, who put these wheels in motion. (Cough)(Clinton).

Don't pick and chose the blame.

Do research, look at the facts, make a smart argument, then return.

Till then

North Korea has had a nuclear research centre and a reactor from the 1960's in Yongbyon. In the 70's there was even an inspection agreement with IAEA. Beyond that most of the politics was between the two regions, and a rift over a denuclearization of the whole of Korea. So there are quite a few 'cough's' involved there long before Clinton. Forget the party politics for five minutes at least.

You read, yes?

How did you misss where I said "As I didn't see you lay out a letter to the people, long before Trump"

Yes, I mentioned Bill Clinton, as he was an example, but I stated "people" meaning more than one.

Like I said, leave out the politics, 'cough' we are talking about a regular asshole who is in a very privileged position way beyond anything you or I can do...AKA not a man of the people, that includes plenty you or I could consider quite wrong...that is a fact, especially if you or I should be affected by the wrongness. That behoves any President to have constraint in all his actions, knowing that he is above the ordinary people.
Instead this guy takes advantage of everything with abandon, and shiites on the people below.

You're talking about Kim right?

Whereever the shoe fits, man!

originally posted by: underwerks
If he'd rather provoke a nuclear response that kills a great number of Americans instead of talking and compromising, then yes, it lays squarely on him.

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, "talking and compromising" hasn't worked, decade after decade?

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, "talking and compromising" with a leader who would rather keep his citizens in abject poverty and under extreme dictatorial rule will not get us anywhere now if it hasn't in the preceding decades?

I could keep doing that, but instead, I won't. I will just note that your assessment of the overall situation seems to be lacking in depth and logic. If you really think that a couple nicknames and (honestly, long overdue) reminders as to what NK is facing if they choose--aren't forced to, but CHOOSE--to tango with the U.S. are tantamount to Trump owning culpability if NK CHOOSES to attack the U.S. or its allies, you really aren't living in an adult world. You tell Trump to grow up, but NK is the one who is letting words hurt them.

If Trumps words hurt them so much, they really should consider what his sticks and stones will do. And I'm quite certain that they are considering this, and they're just puffing their feathers up all peacock style, trying to act tough.

I agree that Trump is handling this in a relatively immature manner with his words, but unless you haven't been paying attention, he has also tried many other diplomatic avenues to get NK to stop testing missiles and nukes--all of which have been ignored or written off as a provocation by NK.

So, in all of your wisdom on this matter, please, let the world know your master plan on how to deal with a leader and a country like North Korea...and instead of giving Trump your "sincerest middle finger," maybe you should offer him your sincerest constructive criticism and a better solution.

If you don't have either, them maybe quit whining about it and place the appropriate amount of responsibility on the shoulders of North Korea for their own actions and chosen ways to deal with this "Cold Stalemate," as I'll call it.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Has it ever occurred to you that talking and compromising is the reason that thousands and probably millions of people haven't been vaporized in a nuclear exchange between our two countries yet?

Obviously not.

a reply to: underwerks

Has it occurred to you that talking and compromising hasn't done jack # to stop the advancement of NK's missile program?

Has it occurred to you that North Korea has claimed to back out of the Korean Armistice Agreement at least six times, and all before Trump was even considering running for president?

Obviously not.

But, yes, let's blame Trump's words...those scary words that make everyone want to run away and seek a safe space or lash out in juvenile temper tantrums. Big, scary words. It's all his fault, for sure.

ETA: Also, your proposed nuclear-war scenario cannot be proven either way--it's a logical fallacy to bring that into the discussion, unless you care to prove that you're right.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I'm just giving my opinion.

If you think Trump is going the correct route by taunting someone with nuclear weapons, that pretty much speaks for itself. The whole point of having nuclear weapons is to make it impossible for someone else to force you into a corner.

And what does Trump do?

Continue to back little fat man into a corner.

But, whatever. At this point I just assume that due to self-imposed political blindness most people think a nuclear exchange is a good thing.

At least that's what I'm hearing here.

Do you think he would be going the correct route if he didn't taunt?

Getting nukes can't be seen as a path to respect. Threatening other nations with your nuke can't be seen as a way of getting respect.

If you set that precedent, then every pint sized dictator on Earth with the ability, will race to get their own nukes, so they can force the American president to recognize and bow.

MADD or "Mutually Assured Destruction" is 100% based on nothing more than "removing the incentive". There is nothing else to the strategy.


If you pay an extortionist, you motivate them to hurt you just as much as if you refuse to pay. The only differences are that:

1) - They'll hurt you later if you pay, rather than sooner.

2) - They'll be in a position of even greater power when they do hurt you (because paying them made them more powerful. And you weaker.)

Trump is wise to keep Kim Jong Un as powerless as he possibly can.

originally posted by: underwerks

As someone who lives in a city where a North Korean nuke just might fall, I'd like to extend my sincerest middle finger to you, Donald Trump. I don't think I'm alone in not wanting to die in a nuclear holocaust because a 71 year old child can't keep his idiot mouth shut.

There is virtually zero chance of that happening. If Jong Un launches a rocket, capable of reaching the USA it will not be one of those Soviet Era "smart ICBM" and it probably won't be a true reentry type of rocket. Which means it will be shot down with 100% certainty. You really don't need to worry.


However, the USA will then be free to respond however it wants. The rest of the world will have to stand out of the way. Conquering North Korea would go very differently from Iraq or Afghanistan, because once Jong Un is deposed, we can simply hand the mess over to South Korea and let them handle the "nation building" part.

a reply to: underwerks

I never said that Trump is going on the correct route--to be honest, I don't know what "the correct route" would be with a regime like the Kim Dynasty over there. I don't think that any amount of sanctions, political correctness, political incorrectness, size comparing, peaceful deterrence, or anything else will have any effect on what Kim wants to do. Their "dear leader" seems hell bent on either getting everything that he wants, or acting like a spoiled child if that doesn't happen. In the end, North Korea will do what North Korea wants to do.

With that noted, I would rather have a president who tries all of the above rather than just some of the more timid options. In the end, if Kim wants to sign his country's death warrant at the hands of MAYBE a direct attack on the U.S., that falls solely on him.

I don't budge at all when it comes to the reality that adults are responsible for their own actions, especially when it comes to how they respond to nothing more than words. Yes, Trump is immaturely provocative with his language, but if you truly think that the language holds culpability over North Korea choosing to start a war of missiles, I just don't think that you're living in reality.

Kim would be at fault, not Trump, because a leader of a nation should be able to handle schoolyard taunting better than choosing to nuke Seattle.

But, like you said..."whatever." Your opinion is that it's Trump's fault if there's a nuclear attack because of his big, scary words--I tend to apply personal responsibility to the one doing the attacking. To each their own.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I was going to post something similar, but doubt I could have put it as well as you did. Instead, I'll simply add :

a reply to: underwerks

People are idiots if they don't understand that Kim would use any excuse to want to use nukes... Little Kim likes when people do what he says, even people in other countries. Who really are at fault are all those people and governments who never wanted to stop little Kim from having the capability to attack other countries with nuclear weapons.

China, Russia, Iran, etc, they all knew little kim would make such threats. They all knew Kim was a wild card that they could use. They all knew Kim would eventually threaten the west with the use of nukes, and they all knew a time would come in which the U.S. alone, might have to stop this crazy idiot from ever using nuclear weapons out of a whim...

My response to every idiot out there who wants to blame President Trump for what little Kim has done is... stfu.

The parties to blame for this situation we are in today includes the left in general, and including every nation that decided not to stop this madness before this lunatic got his hands on nuclear weapons... What i say to everyone of these idiots is... stfu You are too late in the game, you allowed a lunatic to have nuclear weapons, and now you want to point fingers...

I'd say the big problem is Putin, claiming Russia will get involved if the USA responds disproportionately to a nuclear attack (by launching more missiles than Korea did.)

That's the big danger. Disproportionate response is a necessary component of MADD. Launching even one nuke has to lead to utter annihilation for the one who launches first.

If not, then we open up the possibility of a "limited exchange". And a "limited exchange" is a possibility some leaders might actually be ok with. We have to keep "limited exchange" off the table, forever. Otherwise there will be some limited exchanges, and then more of them, and more of them, and then they'll become commonplace (like earthquakes and hurricanes are today). Until nothing is left to fight over anyway.

Don't the camel put his nose in the tent.