Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
McConnell has no authority to visit the WH of his own accord much less invite others too, so clearly he called for it at the request of Trump. Once all in the same room, who knows what is intended. A briefing? A request for permission?
We "own" only what we choose to own. A coalition is preferable but takes time and exposes your plans.
Disagree.
We own if we act unilaterally, especially if preemptively, regardless whether we "choose" to own or not. "Own" as in take full responsibility for beginning and outcome, including the only country (us) North Korea can consider acting against North Korea militarily. Acting unilaterally in such a way takes away the legitimacy a broader coalition provides, for North Korea and our allies as well.
Also disagree about the concern regarding exposure of plans...
If the idea is first to pressure North Korea to stop it's nuclear testing and development, what plans are these that we and/or a coalition would need keep hidden? Not as if North Korea can move a legitimate target if we were to expose the plan to bomb it should North Korea not back down. Right? Was done with Operation Desert Storm. Why not with North Korea?
We own if we act unilaterally, especially if preemptively, regardless whether we "choose" to own or not. "Own" as in take full responsibility for beginning and outcome, including the only country (us) North Korea can consider acting against North Korea militarily. Acting unilaterally in such a way takes away the legitimacy a broader coalition provides, for North Korea and our allies as well.
Also disagree about the concern regarding exposure of plans...
If the idea is first to pressure North Korea to stop it's nuclear testing and development, what plans are these that we and/or a coalition would need keep hidden? Not as if North Korea can move a legitimate target if we were to expose the plan to bomb it should North Korea not back down. Right? Was done with Operation Desert Storm. Why not with North Korea?
No, we "own" what we choose because there is no one who can force us into any "responsibility". Destroying NK does not obligate us to rebuild it. For example, we could conduct a massive strike to neutralize NK military force and take out it's leadership, then leave it to China or SK to annex and rebuild, and bring our forces home. We are only there because NK is a military threat to SK. Remove the threat once and for all and we can remove most of our forces there, either bringing them home or significantly increasing our strength in another arena.
If the decision has been made that "pressure" and talk have failed, and that a pre-emptive strike is required, exposing that through approved resolutions and coalitions would likely induce a pre-emptive attack by NK which would result in tens of thousands more casualties for both Americans and South Koreans. In Desert Storm, Saddam did not have ten million innocent civilians within range of his artillery. He had a couple hundred miles of desert between him and Riyadh so any offensive action on his part gave us hours to counterstrike, and as we saw from Highway of Death, those forces moving across open desert would have been shredded. Saddam also did not have working nukes.
I seriously worry that Trump thinks only in terms of his own legacy as a "man of action" rather than what is right for America and/or the world. Kim Jong-un needs to go, but how he goes is the question...
Some rough combination of General Patton and Harry S. Truman could get the job done. Pity we can't or won't do that any more.
No, we "own" what we choose because there is no one who can force us into any "responsibility". Destroying NK does not obligate us to rebuild it. For example, we could conduct a massive strike to neutralize NK military force and take out it's leadership, then leave it to China or SK to annex and rebuild, and bring our forces home. We are only there because NK is a military threat to SK. Remove the threat once and for all and we can remove most of our forces there, either bringing them home or significantly increasing our strength in another arena.
If the decision has been made that "pressure" and talk have failed, and that a pre-emptive strike is required, exposing that through approved resolutions and coalitions would likely induce a pre-emptive attack by NK which would result in tens of thousands more casualties for both Americans and South Koreans. In Desert Storm, Saddam did not have ten million innocent civilians within range of his artillery. He had a couple hundred miles of desert between him and Riyadh so any offensive action on his part gave us hours to counterstrike, and as we saw from Highway of Death, those forces moving across open desert would have been shredded. Saddam also did not have working nukes.
Seems we have a different definition of "own." I mean "own" as in assuming responsibility for one's actions.
We "owned" what occurred in Iraq after we toppled Saddam, for example. Saddam may also "own" some of that too, but all the more so America given our decision to invade Iraq without a coalition (others). In this regard, we "own" the number of people killed and all else one can argue came as a result of that invasion, including innocent civilians killed.
We "owned" what came of our decision to prosecute the Vietnam War in the same way.
What we then do with that ownership/responsibility is another matter, but another responsibility as well...
That is, again, if one assumes responsibility for one's actions, as one should. You can't bomb or kill anyone without assuming responsibility for that action, no less than you can get behind the wheel of a car and not take responsibility for the driving...
Seems we have a different definition of "own." I mean "own" as in assuming responsibility for one's actions.
You seem to be defining in terms of what we *should* do according to your morality. Or maybe in terms of historical attribution of who did what or caused what. Sure, you can record it for posterity that if the U.S. attacks NK and the result is a wave of NK refugees into China or SK, that the U.S. caused it. If that's how you define "own" it as, fine. But when I say we choose whether we "own" it I mean we choose whether we do anything about it. We can choose to accept some refugees, or not. We can choose to provide assistance (money, supplies, etc) to other countries or groups to help the refugees, or not. We can choose to broker negotiations on what to do next, or not. We could just destroy the NK army, tell SK that the threat to your existence is over, and go home.
It's like firing 60 cruise missiles into Syria. What did we "own" by that? Nothing, because Trump said it doesn't change our policy and we aren't getting further involved. It was a slap to Assad for using chemical weapons, nothing more, nothing less. Use them again, you may get slapped again.
You seem to be defining in terms of what we *should* do according to your morality. Or maybe in terms of historical attribution of who did what or caused what. Sure, you can record it for posterity that if the U.S. attacks NK and the result is a wave of NK refugees into China or SK, that the U.S. caused it. If that's how you define "own" it as, fine. But when I say we choose whether we "own" it I mean we choose whether we do anything about it. We can choose to accept some refugees, or not. We can choose to provide assistance (money, supplies, etc) to other countries or groups to help the refugees, or not. We can choose to broker negotiations on what to do next, or not. We could just destroy the NK army, tell SK that the threat to your existence is over, and go home.
It's like firing 60 cruise missiles into Syria. What did we "own" by that? Nothing, because Trump said it doesn't change our policy and we aren't getting further involved. It was a slap to Assad for using chemical weapons, nothing more, nothing less. Use them again, you may get slapped again.
Of course we can "chose" to do anything, or not! This in no way separates America from responsibility for what it does or does not do as a nation. Ultimately what matters is whether our foreign policy is right or wrong, for the better or worse, and of course this also depends on how we take responsibility for our actions (or not).
One thing just as certain, what Trump says does not necessarily establish the right or wrong of these actions. What Trump decides to do, especially without consent of Congress or a coalition of allies, does not relieve America of responsibility for those actions.
Thinking otherwise is not thinking at all.
Not thinking about matters of life and death is what one might consider "immoral" if you want to think in those terms...
Of course we can "chose" to do anything, or not! This in no way separates America from responsibility for what it does or does not do as a nation. Ultimately what matters is whether our foreign policy is right or wrong, for the better or worse, and of course this also depends on how we take responsibility for our actions (or not).
One thing just as certain, what Trump says does not necessarily establish the right or wrong of these actions. What Trump decides to do, especially without consent of Congress or a coalition of allies, does not relieve America of responsibility for those actions.
Thinking otherwise is not thinking at all.
Not thinking about matters of life and death is what one might consider "immoral" if you want to think in those terms...
Let me see if I understand. NK threatens to nuke the U.S., Japan and South Korea. And the U.S. should do nothing without being muscle-bound by "allies"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by southward bound
There's a "method to his madness."
...carefully calculated to produce dialog between adversaries. Watch his strategy carefully, if you can be unbiased.
He's very good at it.
I agree. I would rep but I think I just repped you.
...carefully calculated to produce dialog between adversaries. Watch his strategy carefully, if you can be unbiased.
He's very good at it.
Yeah might be true.
Lets see, we put together a group of countries to try the diplomatic squeeze play, where we and allies show that you stop doing X, Y and Z. We will provide diplomatic and financial incentives for you.
You (North Korea) then gets to say you have stood up to the great Satan and you strength and determination brought this great victory.
Sort of sounds like an Iran Nuke style dealing doesn't it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
