Saw this just now. So, while I know it was made in August, I’ll reply. It’s just as relevant a topic now anyways.
@Jennifer1984 Said
Whatever Obama's record of diplomacy over North Korea was it was infinitely preferable to the way the stark staring bonkers, total nut job you idiots elected to high office is dealing with things right now. And worse than that, we're now seeing that he's a racist, Nazi-supporting nut job into the bargain.
No doubt. But I see my reason for bringing up Obama went completely over your head. Either that or you purposely chose to ignore it in order to boost your intellectual guise with this irrelevant point.
I guess I’ll spell it out: Was Obama’s approach here done because he was black?
@Jennifer1984 Said
Because sexism had a very large part to play in the reason why you idiots elected a racist, stark staring bonkers, total nut job to high office. You preferred him to having a woman in the White House. Forget the rest of the bulls***, most of it was sexism.
So what part played into the reason why you idiots elected to “Brexit” from the EU? Why did you prefer this to the alternative?
Not only did only 20% of the American population vote for Trump, but more people voted for Hillary than Trump in the election. But let’s keep up with the generalizations because, well, we hate America, don’t we?
Trump was elected for a variety of reasons, and I’m pretty sure you’re correct in that sexism was one of them.
Again, though, you’re sidestepping here. The issue is how to deal with North Korea, not the election. And, to be more specific, the problem I had with your statement was implication is that it would have been dealt with differently if a woman was in charge (as opposed to.....er......a male).
And for the record, Hillary actually was in charge of foreign relations on Obama’s behalf for 4 years. She was Secretary of State from 2009-2013. That’s what the role entails. And she had to deal with Kim’s verbal and tangible threats then as Trump has to now. Therefore she has a track record on it and it was, and is, no mystery how she would have reacted now. And guess what? It wasn’t any different than how other men in charge before her dealt with it.
@Jennifer1984 Said And talking of mystery, to anybody who didn't support a stark staring bonkers nutjob, etc, etc, it wouldn't be any surprise at all why a feminist would draw such a comparison.... Jeez.
With you? No it isn’t a surprise.
@Jennifer1984 Said
For a start, The Korean War was never formally ended. There never was any peace agreement, just a cease fire that has endured this long. You don't "restart" something that hasn't actually ended. All this escalation is merely a continuation of something that has been going on for more than half a century and has never been adequately dealt with.
Thanks for the history lesson, but I was already fully aware of this. You know what I meant though, as anybody would. But let’s devote an entire paragraph on it anyways just to boost that IQ again shall we?
@Jennifer1984 Said Try to imagine, for just one moment, seeing the North Korean point of view. Do that and the reason for their development of these weapons becomes clear.
The North Korean leadership sees their country as still being at war and are therefore arming themselves to the best of their ability to pursue conflict against an aggressive imperialist foreign enemy that maintains a huge force on its doorstep. And before you make the usual throwaway "Anti-American" slur at me as a matter of routine with anything you don't like to read, remember... I'm making what I see as the North Korean viewpoint here.
No argument here. This is not a epiphany either. We all know why Kim is desperate to develop nuclear weapons.
@Jennifer1984 Said
Now, I know this suggestion will be radical but just give it a try. At least allow it to flit across your consciousness for a moment....
Might it not be a good idea to attempt to start negotiations on the basis of a complete end to all hostilities...? You know... a mutual declaration of peace..... of actually ending the war..? It might take a while to achieve because North Korea is run by a paranoid despot but hell, the war's been going on since the early 1950's with no sign of a military victor remotely in sight. Rather, the only thing that's happening is an escalation of weaponry and threat.
Peace eh...? Who'd think of that..?
There are cooler heads at work in Washington, which is reassuring to see. Popular uprisings in countries such as Romania and the Soviet Union have deposed people like Ceaucescu and the Communist regime in the past but that doesn't seem to be even remotely likely in North Korea at this time. It's not even faintly on the horizon. It's much more likely that North Korea would have commissioned operational missiles with long range nuclear capability before any internal attempt at regime change might take place.
I move for a start towards a realistic peace process between North and South Korea. Yeah, I know... that's something else I'd say that wouldn't be a mystery to you. I guess I'm still just the same damn tree hugging peacenik faggot to you, eh..?
But I can live with that.
This is not a radical idea either. In fact it’s been tried before. Twice - in 1994 and in 2003-2007. Both resulted in peace agreements that called for the end of nuclear weapons development and were later broken by North Korea.
That’s why I say the only options at this point are to accept a nuclear North Korea or intervene militarily. Attempts at negotiation will be as futile as the current attempts at sanctioning.