We have a deal!

[Xavier_Onassis]

The part of your plan that would not work is bombing another country that has done no serious harm to the American people.

I do not see Congress voting to bomb Iran over something that does not threaten this country.

Nor do I see this country electing a president that would do this.

Bombing another country is an act of war by definition.

India built a bomb, we din not bomb India.

Pakistan built a bomb, we did not bomb Pakistan.

North Korea built a bomb, we did not bomb North Korea.

Israel built a bomb, we did not bomb Israel.

None of these four countries has threatened us enough to justify any sort of attack of the sort you describe.

[Plane]

You think that because I do not think that the US should attack Iranians who have done nothing against this country or people should be bombed, I am somehow "antisemitic".  That is nonsense. I am anti Zionist. I get along with Jews just fine.

I am against all forms of unprovoked aggression.

North Korea has this far only used its nukes as a deterrent. If North Korea had no nukes, the chances are that the regime would have been overthrown.

How would the overthrow of the regime of North Korea be a bad thing?
Is it good that it last forever?

On the other hand Fifty years without an atomic bomb we respected their borders better than they respected ours, are they safer by being a more realistic threat?

To me it seems that the more they are a real threat the more they deserve the attention of our military planners.

[Christians4LessGvt]

The part of your plan that would not work is bombing another country that has done no serious
harm to the American people.

It would work..there is no doubt it would work..it would work rather easily with no ground troops!
However I did not say the US has the will to do it.

BTW Iran exports terror and has been involved with the killing of many American soldiers.

I do not see Congress voting to bomb Iran over something that does not threaten this country.

Iran ("Death To America" & #1 Exporter of terror) with nukes and the means to deliver them
is certainly a threat to this country and our close allies....duh....that's why Obama is negotiating!

But you are correct
Of course they are not going to vote in favor of the plan that would work
our politicians are not known to make bold and/or correct decisions.

Bombing another country is an act of war by definition.

Hello? We have been at war with Iran for decades.
Why keep it in the shadows?
Why live a fraud?
Why not admit the obvious?
This could have been over a long time ago....no more exporting terror.
By not admitting the truth....more people get killed as a result.
Not addressing and halting the rot....is not the "high road".

None of these four countries has threatened us enough to justify any sort of attack of the sort you describe.

Exactly my point.

[Plane]

The part of your plan that would not work is bombing another country that has done no serious harm to the American people.

?

What would be serious harm?

Saddam Hussein convinced us that he was a potential atomic bomb wielder, and we invaded the place twice.

  Frankly Saddam seems like a bigger threat at that time than Iran seems like now.

   But what other circumstance seems similar?

   Well, both invasions of Iraq happened after a rather pacifistic Democratic president was replaced by a no nonsense Republican.

    Jimmy Carter was too mild and Saddam got some wrong signals, Reagan isn't the president I am talking about, Reagan did not let Saddam know what the worst case could be, but he did build the power up.

     Bush decided to nip a problem in the bud, stopped too soon and left the war going on.

   Clinton bombed Saddam often but pretended that there was no war.

      So Bush mark 2 ended that war, unfortunately another war on the same site broke out.

   Now we have Obama pretending that there is no war while the Iranians are convincing us that they are a real threat.

   This resembles the set up  of the big short phase of the war with Iraq.

   If we keep electing pacifists , alternating with belligerents, we are going to keep whipsawing and wall slamming our enemies for decades yet, as they remain pretty much the same themselves and never learn the tides of American politics.

[sirs]

The part of your plan that would not work is bombing another country that has done no serious harm to the American people.

Tells you what little you know of "my plan".  1st off, ANY military intervention, as in ONLY to be applied if specific components of an "understanding to a framework" aren't met, would be SPECIFIC to MILITARY INSTALLATIONS/TARGETS, until said compliance has been met.   Not just Iran in general

I do not see Congress voting to bomb Iran over something that does not threaten this country.

While its understandably preferred;
A) As Obama & Clinton have made it crystal clear, thru their actions of drones, tomahawks, and SEALS missions, we can bomb anyone we want, without congressional vote.
B) We do it consistently without a "direct" threat to this country.  The threat could be to any of our allies, or government/military assets in the region

 

Nor do I see this country electing a president that would do this.

No President is going to run on such a platform.  What the people elect however are leaders.  And leaders, specifically the President in this case, will have to make that decision whether to or not, based on the circumstances they're presented with

Bombing another country is an act of war by definition.

Then Clinton & Obama have been at war since they've taken office.  We've been bombing military targets around the region for some time now.  Nothing different here, outside of perhaps an increased focus of those strikes.

Israel built a bomb, we did not bomb Israel.

Israel has never proclaimed death to America, not to mention, they're our greatest allie in the region, so why would we??   

India built a bomb, we din not bomb India.

India's leadership has never once proclaimed death to America, or death to Israel for that matter.

Pakistan built a bomb, we did not bomb Pakistan.

See above

North Korea built a bomb, we did not bomb North Korea.

See above, although its nice to see you provided a great example of what "diplomacy" looks like, where we negotiated a "treaty", signed and everything, in the clear effort to prevent NK from building nuclear weapons, and we see how well that worked out

None of these four countries has threatened us enough to justify any sort of attack of the sort you describe.

Putting aside how erroneously you descrbed my "attack", none of those 4 are the chief sponsor of terrorist activity, nor have proclaimed death to America as an end goal

[Plane]

   There would be no point to attacking France or India, they really mean us no harm.

    But Pakistan is about as unfriendly as a friend could be, while North Korea promises our doom .

      Having atomic bombs doesn't prevent the USA from sending commando teams in to assassinate honored guests ,having atomic bombs does not prevent pinpoint drone attacks on territory, having atomic bombs does not cause victory in a territorial dispute with neighbors , having atomic bombs doesn't even keep Hollywood from making ridiculous mockeries of your leadership.

     I can only imagine the disappointment.

      What these guys really need is atomic parity with their enemy.

       Of course we had better than parity with them from the get go, and I feel disappointed .

[Xavier_Onassis]

Actually, the overthrow of North Korea and reunification with South Korea would be a good thing over the long haul, but could cause serious problems for the Korean economy in the short run. When Germany reunified, nearly the entire old political class of West Germany were thrown out of office. They were extremely lucky that a competent person like Angela Merkle appeared. She was born and raised in East Germany.

East Germany had a per capita income of about a third of the West. East Germans had been listening to West German media for decades. East Germans were well educated. In North Korea, the difference in per capita income is  huge, North Koreans know little about the South, and are unprepared for a modern capitalist economy. But they will, as Korean citizens, be a large voting bloc. The collapse of the Korean economy for a decade or more is a possibility.

Reunification might be great for human rights, but for the Korean economy, it would be a huge shock unless handled very skillfully, perhaps in  some gradual manner.

North Korea has not attacked the US in any serious manner, it has only made pompous noises and hollow threats.

[sirs]

Which is why we didn't attack their capability at nuclear weapons after the fact. 

BEFORE the fact however, not only were they not on record as proclaiming death to America, Carter had gotten them to sign a treaty where they pretty much promised they wouldn't.  We see how that bit of diplomacy worked out now, didn't we

[Xavier_Onassis]

When was it that North Korea actually attacked the US?

[sirs]

When did anyone claim North Korea ever did??, (outside of the recent cyber attack on Sony, of course).  Seriously, do you pay any attention to what anyone types??  Or do you just have these standard cue card responses??  Did you just not see where I had made it clear that NK had never proclaimed "Death to America"??  No reason to preemptively attack them, now was there      

The greatness of you bringing up NK is to demonstrate how successful "diplomacy" alone is in dealing with a rogue nation, with their eyes set on building nuclear weapons.  Now, add to that a rogue nation who HAS proclaimed Death to America, who HAS been a chief foster of terrorist activity, who HAS been a clear threat to the surrounding region, and those countries allied with us

[Christians4LessGvt]

They were extremely lucky that a competent person like Angela Merkle appeared.
She was born and raised in East Germany.

Ha Ha....at least this guy is at least consistent!
Yes the East Germans who had a "hell-hole" result
came and "saved" the booming West Germany.

[sirs]

The part that our Professor doesn't get, as well as our Community organizer and chief, is that we shouldn't have to wait until we are "attacked", as in a nuke fired at us, or any of our allies, before we do something about it.  At that point, its too late

So, the follow-up that the Professor keeps trying to paint, that even Obama doesn't, is that a country like Iran, should have every right to have their own nuclear arsenal, as a "deterrent".  The problem with that tactic, is that the "aggressors" in this little production are those who sponsor & support Radical Islamic terrorism as well as Islamofascist rule.  Put aside the overt illegality that acts such as homosexuality is in those countries, like Iran.  The folks that preach Jihad, have no problems martyring themselves, in the twisted notion of all these virgins waiting for them.  Countries like Iran's leadership don't function like ours.  We consider life prescious.  They consider life a tool of Allah.  If it requires the giving of one's life, "for the cause", so be it.  If it requires launching a nuclear missile, in the twisted effort to kill as many Americans, Israelis, and/or allies, knowing there could be retaliation.....so be it

THAT'S WHY, as so many have concluded, including Obama, that a nuclear Iran is completely unacceptable

[Plane]

When was it that North Korea actually attacked the US?

The Time the U.S. Nearly Nuked North Korea Over a Highjacked Spy Ship

The Pueblo incident ended peacefully, but newly unclassified documents detail President Johnson's contingency plans



 http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/time-us-nearly-nuked-north-korea-over-highjacked-spy-ship-180949514/#l0FAuAGwJoHKOAFM.99


This is one of the worst , but there are dozens of examples of North Korean recklessness.

Our a-bombs do not deter them, they think their much fewer bombs deter us now because they are poor students of human nature.

[Xavier_Onassis]

North Korea cannot actually invade or take over the US.

Their main goal is to unify Korea under Kim Jung Un, which is not going to happen.  Since 1952, the deterrents used by South Korea and the US have been adequate to prevent any major war. 

From North Korea's standpoint, a nuclear deterrent makes sense. South Korea is under the US nuclear umbrella, but North Korea does not trust the Chinese to provide an adequate deterrent.

East Germany was corrupt, but it was far more prosperous than  North Korea.  The unification of the two Koreas could cause major crashes in the world economy if not handled properly. North Korea is destitute and its people are unprepared for functioning in a modern first world economy like that of South Korea.

I agree that North Korea is a mess, and its people should be free, but again, Korean reunification is not likely to go as smoothly as German Reunification. Note that Germany does not share a border with China. There are several million ethnic Koreans in China and Russia as well.

And it is entirely true that the politicians that were in office before the reunification of Germany were nearly all replaced, democratically and mostly successfully, by others when reunification happened. The capital was moved from Bonn to Berlin, which was a major expense and had political effects as well.

You cannot change the facts: Angela Merkle was born in the East, the daughter of a Lutheran minister, and has been quite successful as leader of Germany. She replaced a man born in the West.

[Christians4LessGvt]

You cannot change the facts: Angela Merkle was born in the East, the daughter of a Lutheran minister, and has been quite successful as leader of Germany. She replaced a man born in the West.

well of course there are great former east Germans that when freed from shithole enslavement reach their potential.
that's exactly the point....