Ok.... so what do you REALLY think?

[Gandalf]

@Beanz

What sets you and Miles apart from a few of us on NK, and on U.S. foreign policy is simple.

Neither of you is willing to accept what most other countries know for a fact. That NK is the global equivalent of a rabid chihuahua.... barking at the bigger dogs and demanding equal footing on the world stage. The chihuahua will bite. It may not do too much damage. And if it bites a bigger dog that will probably be the end of the chihuahua. But its temperament make it one of the world's less liked dogs. Pretty much the same with NK. Problem is, both you and Miles are so bent on criticizing Trump, that you go as far as excusing NK to do it. That's your prerogative of course, but it's wrong, IMO. I on the other hand, can do both. Criticize the hell out of Trump..... then turn around and do the same with NK. Facts stand on their own merit, such as Miles justifying NK threats to nuke Guam because the U.S. hasn't built a light water reactor for them yet. Yeah... makes a lot of sense. The only thing that justifies using nukes against innocent people is if you yourself are threatened with nukes first. I've yet to see you or Miles quote Trump as doing exactly that, particularly before Kim Jong-un made his own threats.

On U.S. foreign policy, we're probably not that far apart without actually realizing it. The U.S. is perfectly capable of dressing something up as "national security", and use it as an excuse to invade or attack another country. When in reality there are more likely powerful economic interests involved. So nowhere will you see me defend most of U.S. interventions in other parts of the world. Personally, I think the U.S. would be better served to spend its billions at home, helping people in need, and financing programs that benefit its citizens. However, to criticize the U.S. for going after Osama and terrorists in general after 9-11 is a bit shortsighted and ignorant, IMO. No country in the world would've turned the other cheek after an attack like that. Unless of course you belong to the group of conspiracy theorists who probably think the U.S. attacked itself to have an excuse to go attack someone else.

One post to humour you, Tito. Yes, I will preface your response by saying that yes, yes, yes, I like hot drinks, like jackets etc. Very droll.

I said that the US broke the terms of the 1994 deal thus reneging on any agreement. North Korea at that point had as much right to develop its weapons just as the US had, Pakistan had, Israel had etc. Do I like it? No. Do I like the North Korean regime? No? However, a nation has the right to defend its borders. Trump is testing nukes and expanding the arsenal. Nobody advocates sanctions, nobody cares. You do not think I would prefer a region without nukes, without military bases etc?

The threat to throw rockets into the sea around Guam was a response to the imposed sanctions. Were sanctions applied to the US and the UK after Iraq? Were sanctions applied to Israel after the Gaza massacre? Are sanctions applied to Saudi Arabia now for its actions in Yemen? No. All I do is point out the double standards.

Do I like countries threatening one another? No. However, you all have double standards when it comes to all of these issues. The thing is if you try to argue a point with you your default mode is to call someone an apologist or a hater and then launch personal vitriol. You do not seem to actually know how to discuss an issue. You then make up things like me saying a lack of reactors was a reason to nuke someone. I never said that.

Several times I made the point that actual bombs are killing actual people in the world and that that is more meaningful that than threats to do so. Both are wrong, but it's a bit strange having a country with hundreds of nuke tests, thousands of nukes, actual use of nukes and actual bombs killing people, country toppling one after the other, and for you to sit there like butter wouldn't melt and say it is hating to point out that it is odd for that nation to call out another or sanction them over a weapons program. That's where you cannot have a discussion, because you do not want to hear it. It's easier to call someone a hater and call them a few names.

That's why I do not want to post. It is basically this and loads of threads arguing for nukes. I thought we were a little community able to accomodate and discuss and fall out sometimes, but lately it has been overkill. How many NK threads does Brock need to start? What does it have to do with him? You are on a little island out there somewhere. How about the regional players handle it themselves? What does it have to do with you? You were the ones pushing for sanctions yet doing drills on their border.

Nuts really. Cognitive dissonance is the technical term.