NK's Kim: His Test for Sanity!

[Philip]

This situation has reached a very serious level: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/09/ ... first.html

Hard to see something not coming to a head in the next months or less.

[edwardmurphy]

If only there was another world leader willing to step up and match his level of hyperbolic lunacy. That would help, right?

[RickD]

If only there was another world leader willing to step up and match his level of hyperbolic lunacy. That would help, right?

Ed,

What do you suggest would be the best thing for America to do?

[Philip]

Rocket man is apparently going to push things as far as he can. If you think he's a threat now, simply ignore him and he'll be much harder and more dangerous to deal with. I think he's sane, but deluded by what he thinks he can get away with - which is quite scary. The more rocket/nuke ability he achieves, the more likely his megalomania will push things. I don't think for a moment Trump warning him can be a bad thing - IF he's sane. Again, if he's not, it doesn't change much, except the acceleration of the situation. But whatever he's going to eventually try, it's better to face it now. We also know that now that China is sick of him. Russia as well. That he's not lashed out at China for it's banks sanctions is telling - likely, that shows that he's sane and knows they can really make his situation very bad, very quickly. I think we're going to see more executions of those in his inner circle, as he knows a whole lot of people are plotting against him. I'd be willing to be NO one is getting near him with a firearm. He's gotta go!

[edwardmurphy]

If only there was another world leader willing to step up and match his level of hyperbolic lunacy. That would help, right?

Ed,

What do you suggest would be the best thing for America to do?

Well, at the moment Trump is all about sanctions. Maybe he should shut up and give them 15 minutes to work.

My guess is that Kim is sane, that he's terrified, and that he's betting the farm on the hope that if he pushes hard enough Trump will back down and open the door for negotiation.

I also suspect that if the US attacks North Korea Kim will respond by doing something horrific - maybe by opening up on Seoul with his massed artillery, maybe by firing a nuclear weapon at South Korea, Japan, or US territory, maybe by nuking Pyongyang to make sure we can't get him and nobody else can get their hands on his toys.

So anyway, I'm not sure what we should do, but I'm certain that matching crazy with crazy and cranking up the tension is incredibly dangerous and irresponsible.

[RickD]

rickd wrote:

Ed,

What do you suggest would be the best thing for America to do?

paraphrasing what Ed wrote:
I don't know, but whatever Trump does is wrong, because he's Trump.

Thanks ed

[edwardmurphy]

That's obnoxious, Rick. You asked a question, I gave you a thoughtful response, and your only response was to mischaracterize and dismiss what I said. That's also what you did when I listed reasons I don't like Trump. If we're going to have a grown-up conversation you have to act like a grown-up.

So no, my objection to the President stooping to name-calling and unrealistic threats is not simply because the person acting like an irresponsible jackass is Donald Trump. I dislike irresponsible jackassery, period, and I dislike Donald Trump because he shows a clear and consistent pattern of behaving that way. Attacking the free press, calling on his supporters to attack protesters, and falsely claiming that thousands of Muslims in New Jersey celebrated 9/11 (or that Obama wiretapped Trump Tower, or that 3 million people voted illegally, or that Mexicans were mostly rapists) is dangerous and irresponsible.

For better or worse, Donald Trump is the President of the United States, and it's about damned time he started acting more like the Commander-in-Chief and less like the loudmouthed drunk at the end of the bar.

[B. W.]

That's obnoxious, Rick. You asked a question, I gave you a thoughtful response, and your only response was to mischaracterize and dismiss what I said. That's also what you did when I listed reasons I don't like Trump. If we're going to have a grown-up conversation you have to act like a grown-up.

So no, my objection to the President stooping to name-calling and unrealistic threats is not simply because the person acting like an irresponsible jackass is Donald Trump. I dislike irresponsible jackassery, period, and I dislike Donald Trump because he shows a clear and consistent pattern of behaving that way. Attacking the free press, calling on his supporters to attack protesters, and falsely claiming that thousands of Muslims in New Jersey celebrated 9/11 (or that Obama wiretapped Trump Tower, or that 3 million people voted illegally, or that Mexicans were mostly rapists) is dangerous and irresponsible.

For better or worse, Donald Trump is the President of the United States, and it's about damned time he started acting more like the Commander-in-Chief and less like the loudmouthed drunk at the end of the bar.

Rick was not being obnoxious Ed...
-
-
-

[edwardmurphy]

Was too, Melvin...
-
-
-

[Kurieuo]

I think there are only two options on the table, the first should be tried.

1) US should seriously negotiate with North Korea to dismantle their nuclear, which means both sides have to give. Ensuring NK keep to their part of the agreement could be reasonably done by a third party, such as having UN inspectors on the ground, and stationed throughout the country in any area considered a compound for such. For all the bickering, China and Russia could act as intermediaries to any such negotiations. Such would also mean the US giving up something that really concerns North Korea, for example, war games with South Korea happening close to North Korean territory.

2) Taking out Kim Jong Un covertly and then overrunning the country with a strong military presence, without using "weapons of mass destruction." To use very destructive weapons, would likely ensure militant groups arising in NK who set against the US and West (like in the Middle East). It is also unfair on the innocent people there, who have sadly been under Kim's and his family's regime for many years. So any military action has to be quick and effective covert action and/or perhaps very targeted and limited strikes.

If Kim can't be taken out without the use of nukes, then it is at a standoff and negotiations are really the only alternative. Dropping nukes would affect South Korea and actually the a lot of the world. It would change international relationships drastically and put many on edge. Without coming to a negotiated agreements, the only military action I see Trump can take is a very targeted and quick covert operation to take down Kim and then sweeping in with strong military presence to secure suspicious facilities and ensure it doesn't turn into a mess (based upon history in the Middle East, good luck!).

[Philip]

K: I think there are only two options on the table, the first should be tried.

K: 1) US should seriously negotiate with North Korea to dismantle their nuclear, which means both sides have to give.

Immensely unlikely - it's been tried. Kim has built his credibility to his people via his nuclear capabilities - this would be seen internally as a humiliating embarrassment and a sign of weakness.

K: Ensuring NK keep to their part of the agreement could be reasonably done by a third party, such as having UN inspectors on the ground, and stationed throughout the country in any area considered a compound for such.

Easy to hide and avoid - Iran did!

K: For all the bickering, China and Russia could act as intermediaries to any such negotiations.

Yeah, like they would be looking out for OUR and the world's interests! And as soon as a liberal government takes over after the weak GOPsters, it'll soon be business as usual - with us and the world just looking the other way, so as not to see what we don't want to.

K: 2) Taking out Kim Jong Un covertly and then overrunning the country with a strong military presence, without using "weapons of mass destruction."

Probably the best option to avoid all-out war!

K: If Kim can't be taken out without the use of nukes, then it is at a standoff and negotiations are really the only alternative.

Nukes will only be launched if Kim does so first - I'm pretty sure of that. Unilaterally attacking them would be a bad call. But the call, if needed, will likely need to be made within moments - yeah, VERY scary!

K: Without coming to a negotiated agreements, the only military action I see Trump can take is a very targeted and quick covert operation to take down Kim and then sweeping in with strong military presence to secure suspicious facilities and ensure it doesn't turn into a mess (based upon history in the Middle East, good luck!).

Yes, but he'll need more than luck! And the occupation - easily another 50 years! And avoiding Russian and China aggression in response - very dicey stuff.

All I know is to not get anxiety ridden over a situation I know God is in control of. Rocketman is in His hands - however He might deal with him.