Does Truth Matter?

Post Reply New Topic

Your sounding like you agree with foreign intervention. Are you a hawk Androbot?

I get that impression from you a bit, you seem to like Trump's foreign policy.

I personally am after reading the crap that went down in the 90s but I am still opposed to things like the war in Iraq and I like the Iran deal. Lol I even like the Patriot Act which was unpopular.

I would favour diplomacy over war, but with North Korea, he is just going to keep lobbing missiles until one hits the West, so I agree with a show of strength. This Kim reign needs to tone it down a notch.

With Syria, the strike at the airfield was more of a warning, a reminder of the power of the U.S., which I think is warranted.

Trump seems to being building a friendship with China now which I think is the right move. Together they can probably quiet Kim. And there's plenty of money to be made with the Chinese.

And in Afghanistan, it was a good tactical move, but I can't help but feel bad for all the animals living in the mountains who would have had their eardrums blown out.

So no, not a hawk. I don't like suffering, so I prefer it to be avoided.

What do you think about having an Iran Nuclear Deal North Korea version could that work?

I think that's a great idea and one that Trump has probably had. He may be putting himself in a position of strength to better make such a deal.

IMHO we have the very bad choices of containment or war. Either of those choices will probably fail, but trying to make a deal with them definitely will fail because they have broken every deal they have signed and I see no reason why they would not play everybody for suckers again.

The situation has similarities to a person that has ignored cancer for too long. They can hope that watchful waiting or treatments work even though the cancer is beyond the stage where treatments usually work, or they can have an operation that will permanently disfigure of kill them.

Of course they do. For them it's a delaying tactic until they can devolelep a long range missile and nuke warhead. Then use that to threaten the south and west to get more money for their failing society. That or finally reunify Korea under Kim's rule.

As for being at war with Korea . Peace was never signed. N Korea is at war with a us ally. That's why we have bases there. So really we are at war it's just cold so far. Rest assured any offensive war from them will strike us bases first as that's the strongest forces there.

I don't believe in violence except as to prevent harm or death. Unfortunately a lot of people in the world view violence as fun or primary way to get there way or desires. Therefore we can not afford to not use violence as they most certainly will use it on us regardless of our beliefs.
These is why I'll never understand or agree with pacifists.

It may be different as I feel the US is prepared to use force. That may bring Kim Jong Un to his knees. Very very few dictators throughout World history would ever chose to sacrifice themselves and their regime in favor of their own ambitions. As we have seen in Qaddafi's Libya. Besides even if North Korea does get nasty after awhile it will delay their capacity to wage war for years, they will have destroyed their own centrifuges and capacities for waging war for a period of time. This allows countries like the USA to get a stronger position.

Yeah there's a distinct theme of "good cop bad cop" with respect to US Presidents. So everybody agrees in general that it's better to make peace with adversaries than to confront them, however these adversaries tend to be dictators and will eventually get the message that the US (and the West in general) will agree to anything if promised peace in return.

Then you get a President like Reagan or Trump (who are similar in this regard, at least). These guys give out the message that they will forgo peace if necessary, and surprisingly progress gets made where it wasn't before. Saying that an armada is steaming towards North Korea, if not really true, gives a clear message of willingness to resort to naked aggression if not taken seriously. Likewise a missile attack on a reasonably well-hardened air base doesn't achieve much tactical gain, but it shows willingness to act aggressively without regard to how some people in the Middle East or Moscow might react. Carter and Obama, respectively, weren't up to such things (and the world knew it). In Reagan's case, the Soviet Union fell apart (not that Reagan was solely responsible for that, but his actions certainly didn't hurt). In Trump's case, who knows?

He said he doesn't like to show all his cards.