Ten oz

Seems kim is engaged in a tit for tat with Trump. Basically both Kim and Trump are saying many of the same things. Not sure why that makes Kim more of a madman than it makes Trump? It is also useful to point out Kim's rhetoric is all about what North Korea will do in response to an attack and not preemptively.

While I agree with Phi for All and iNow i also wonder if my feeling aren't naive. Like the saying "the one who loves least has the most control in a relationship". Many societies throughout history succeeded by shamelessly or guiltlessly exploiting others. History is written by the winners so to this day we celebrate many murderous sociopaths as great leaders. Lying, manipulating, and being cold blooded enough to murder innocent people has been an extremely useful evolutionary trait it seems. Seems all our "great" societies were built on great deceptions, crimes, or betrayals.

Life, all life, seems to always be trying to live. Coping with death doesn't seem to be a useful evolutionary trait. Rather attemptinng to live on and on is. Death doesn't require your best efforts life does. Also, in a sense we have all already been dead. Where were you during the migration out of Africa, rise of the Roman Empire, or the fall of Incan Empire? Where you were then, during all that time is where you'll return to. No effort required, no coping needed.

Longer and more extensive war later? That implies it can be shorter and less extensive now. All relative since a future war at a later time is theoretical. What war which the U.S has been directly involved in over the last hundred years hasn't been long and extensive? What pre-emptive wars look good in hindsight?

Back in April Trump claimed he was sending an "armada" to the peninsula. Clinton, Bush, and Obama all had tense times with North Korea. Relations have been poor since the Korean War. Trump's language and lack of diplomatic understanding or experience seems to be making the situation worse. North Korea already called Trump's armada bluff. It is bad for future international affairs for Trump to continue blustering.

You have been drawing connections between the politics (or would you prefer the word behavior) of various countries and Islam this whole thread yet accuse me of shifting the debate? That is needless posturing. If you said the form of Islam practiced by ISIS or some other specific regime were a negative influence I don't think a single poster here would disagree with you. Because the majority of ISIS members do adhere to specific values which are "derivative" of their beliefs. When you make it all of Islam which contains the potential that is where your point goes off the rails. Amongst all muslims there is not a major position and the horrors you list. As such you are blaming the majority for actions of a minority.

What specific beliefs that you consider to be ones which lend themselves to whatever problematic politics in Saudi Arabia that the overwhelming majority of Muslims would all agree with? I understand that you are referencing the countries politics and not terrorism exclusively. However the govt of Saudi Arabia and Islam are not one in the same.

Pointing out that the Conservatives in the U.S. support Trump (81% voted for Trump) is not demagoguing. It is accurately describing them. Less than one percent of Muslims are terrorists. Carrying on about the dangers of Islam based on what less than a single percent of Muslims do is demogoguing. The overwhelming majority of conservatives in the U.S. support Trump. That is a fact. It is not a fact to say the overwhelming majority of Muslim support terrorism, monarchies, dictatorships, and ect.

As an athiest I don't "respect" any religion. As a human I understand demagoguing large groups of people based on their beliefs is never useful. In my opinion that is the crux of the matter.

Is that the point of discussion on this forum, in a philosophy sub section thread no less, to win or lose?

But will the GOP continue to tolerate this? Will conservative voters eventually realize they are supporting an administration which is working against the best interest of the country,founding principles anddemocracy in general? I think the GOP believes that provided they continue to have election wins it is all worth it somehow. Meanwhile I think conservative supporters are stuck in a very stubborn mood where they feel any reconsideration or step backwards is equal to admitting they've been fools. They seem to rather it all collaspe than go back. Like a gambler putting all the chips on one last hand.

One gaint inconvenient matter here is that Kim Jing-il's pursuit of WMD's may very well be the only reason his son Kim Jung-un is still in power today. Had Jong-il conceded to calls too and demilitarize it is very likely he would have then experienced the U.S. supproting opposition groups to eventually overthrow his regime. Muammar Gaddafi agreed to eliminate his country's WMD's conceding to U.S. pressure back in 2003 as (U.S.) invasion of Iraq kicked off. Gaddafi who'd been in power since 1977 and considered a strongman the throughout by the west was Initially celebrated Toney Blair and George Bush for the decision to finally cooperate. By 2011, with technically military support from the U.S., opposition to Gaddafi were dragging his body down the street. Contrast that with Syria. During the Iraq war kick off we (U.S.) pressured Assad same as Gaddafi but Assad refused. We respond with rounds of sanctions the Syrian Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Act is 2004 and against the Commercial Bank of Syria via the Patriot Act in 2006. Additionally we provided weapons and technical support to opposition groups. However and in part because Assad never disarmed and instead allied with the military power of Russia his body has yet to be laid out on display in the streets following public execution. This isn't meant to paint the U.S. as the bad guy. Assad is a evil person who uses chemical weapons and helpless people. Kim Jong-un baths is luxury while his people starve. My point is that history tells us that strongmen who eventually concede to the pressure to demilitarize their hold on power don't last long afterward. Fear of how crazy Kim is and what he might do is the only reason he is still alive perhaps and it is a caveat to all of this I think he is aware of.

Early in Trump's Presidency he directed followers to tune into a specific night Jeanine Pirro's show and she opened that show by calling on Paul Ryan to stepdown due to the initial healthcare vote failures. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/26/us/politics/jeanine-pirro-paul-ryan-trump.html Whether by random happen stance or collusion it seems Russia cyber attacks continue to align with Trump. I do not preted to know what the long term play is for Russia but it seems bothRussia and Trump would like to see Paul Ryan replaced as speaker of house.

Japan could assemble a nuclear weapon anytime they want to. They don't need our assistance to do so.

"Russian-linked bots and trolls have caused a surge in use of the hashtag #ResignPaulRyan on Twitter over the last 48 hours, just as the Republican speaker of the House was returning to his home state of Wisconsin for a month-long respite from Washington, D.C. " "It hasn’t been a common occurrence for the Alliance’s dashboard to pick up on Russian bot activity targeting members of the GOP since the site was launched last week by former FBI special agent Clint Watts. But Ryan wasn’t the only member of Trump’s party to face countless bots demanding his removal. A campaign calling on the president to fire National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster received widespread support from bots and trolls over the last several days using the hashtag #FireMcMaster, eventually getting picked up by some right-wing fake news sites that seem to have the president’s full attention, including Breitbart. " http://www.newsweek.com/russian-bots-attacking-republican-party-paul-ryan-mcmaster-breitbart-647528 Hmmm........First they came for Hillary Clinton, then they came for the Democratic Party, then they came for the free press, now they've come for Republicans.......and the system might be too broke to stop them!! Trump begrudgingly signed a new round of sanctions designed to punish Russia for interfering with our election in 2016 calling it "seriously flawed". Russia has responding by launching attacks against the National Security Advisor and Speaker of the House. Do Republicans have the strength to stand against this? The President continues to deny any of this has or continues to happen. All things considered, direct collusion or not, I think it is clear the President is content with empowering Russia's behavior via his (Trump's) denial, attacks against fre press, and refusal to honestly respond diplomatically. What happens if in 2018 Russia succeeds in ousting Congress members they see as obstacles?

There are conflicts all across Africa and Southern Asia and we don't have drones blowing up home daily in those regions. Despite the heightened rhetoric about drug cartels and Mexico he aren't blowing up cities in Central America.

I 100% believe our national view towards Islam plays a role, of course. You must be kidding to apply other wise. Post 9/11 we have taken a hard stance with all Muslim majority countries and many Politicians include POTUS himself have made Islamophobic remarks.

No one is purpose to start a war over it? My counter (U.S.) has combat troops in Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia right now well as the borders of Pakistan. We kill people in the region everyday. The belief that Islam is bad absolutely plays a role in the population of the U.S. supporting these ongoing operations. If not for the negative view so many have towards Muslims I absolutely believe we'd (U.S.) would take a more peaceful and diplomatic approach in the region.

I think it is fair to say that NK is aware that the U.S. has a superior Military and that any potential war would be on their streets and not streets here in the U.S.. War vs the U.S. would end society as NK knows it. As such the trash talking isn't equal. When someone much bigger and stronger threatens you the sense of urgency it creates is considerably different than when someone much smaller and weaker does the same. In addition to be considerably most powerful Militarily the U.S. also has a long history of removing regimes around the world we (U.S.) doesn't like. So much so that I imagine that every world leader that hears their name mentioned negatively by U.S. politicians have legitimate worries they may be forcibly removed by U.S. force someday. So will NK it acted childish our behavior over the year too has been very threatening.

People have used the argument that one culture is lesser than another since the stone age to justify war or make demands on others. In hindsight history never views the culture claiming superiority well. Your position that we (Western World) should reject a culture as regressive historically has been viewed poorly time and time again. We can support peace and cooperation without demagoguing religion.

Most are rational and really good? Saudi is an absolute monarchy and human rights abuser. From their oppression of women to their indentured servitude style foriegn labor practices they are far from your description. Additionally your point about education is overstated as being educated in itself doesn't make one compassionate. Assad has a post graduate degree in Ophthalmology but is still a terrible person.

Are you implying there is nothing to be learned from history? Better to just hyper focus in a vacuum of your current perspective. Point of taking a bigger view is to understand that the problem is greater than religion. The issues in throughout the Middle East are greater than religion. Remove Islam and Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc and the region wouldn't become Western styled Democracies. There are economic and geo-political forces are play. Religion isn't the reason for quasi war between Saudi and Iran in Yemen, isn't the reason Assad gassed people in Syria, and so on. When you hear U.S. President talk about how the U.S. should have taken Iraq's oil or see Western World leaders visiting and showing support for the Saudi royal family despite their abuses it sort of gives it away that this isn't about religion. It is about what it is always about: power, resources, control, etc.

Humans have been killing, raping, enslaving, beating, and etc other humans since before the first religion was ever dreamt up. There is no point in history going back to the time of hunter gatherer tribes when humans were collectively benevolent. We, humans, have been our own worst enemy throughout existence killing sacking cities, rapping women, killing children, and etc. Focus in at any moment in time and it always seems like there are specific beliefs (religious/political/ sometype of ism) that is the root cause. Focus in on Spain is the late 1400's and it is Catholocism, South U.S. mid 1800's it is Racism, early 1900's Europe it is Facism and Nazism, and etc. Saying "at least nit at this point in time" is irrelevant. Pull back from a narrow focus look at all of time and recognize that regardless the labels humans have consistantly behaved this way. Sayingit is "cause by religion" is also irrelevant as the behaviors we see today are the same we have seen well before Islam. Religion is a symptom and not the disease itself. And I say that as a atheist who finds all religion silly.

While it is true that the Middle East has been volatile for a long time I think a change is point of view is needed when considering the implications of that. Where is the world has it not been volatile for long time? Herein the U.S. we begun violently with the War for Independence followed by: The Quasi-War, War of 1812, Mexican American war, Civil War, Spanish American war, WW1, WW2, Korean War, Vietnam War, Gulf War, Afghanistan War, and the Iraq War. Along the way we committed atrocities against Native Americans, enslaved Africans, repatriated Americans to Mexico on false pretense, dropped to atomic bombs on Japan incinerating woman and children, and etc, etc, etc. Today we have military troops actively involve in combot in Syria, Yemen, Somolia, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Add to all that war the U.S. has more imprisoned citizens than any other country in the world, are one of the world leaders in Capital Punishment, and our police shoot and kill more citizens than all other none 3rd world countries combined. Yet we (USA) are not considered volatile despite the fact we relentlessly are at wars and awash in violence. My point is not to demagogue the U.S., I love my country. My point is that it seems we only consider those countries which get bombs dropped on them volatile and not vice versa. Once a country grows powerful enough militarily to not have outside forces arbitrarily impose chioces on them they become stable. It is why North Korea and Iran seek dangerous levels of military power. If they didn't have strong military forces the leaderships of both (North Korea and Iran) would have been removed from power by external forces long ago. We can dicuss better education for the youth and all these things but living in a place being bombed regularly by occupying forces is the paramount challange. In Afghanistan 2 million were killed during the war with Russia and half a million have been killed thus far during the U.S. war. That is 2.5 million people in the last 30-40yrs of war. Then there is the loss of infrastructure from everything being blown up and burnt down. The loss of productivity is crippling. Similar numbers exist through the region. I won't go country by country because I'd be typing all day. I am not blaming Russia, the U.S., and E.U, for all the problems. The region has many problems of its own causing to deal with. Thing is all regions have their own problems and having larger more powerful forces pressuring in is an extra burden and the easiest burden for the world community to stop. The whole world is a volatile place. War has been a constant through time and is generally always waged on the weakers home turf.

What is true and what is moral, especially as it relates to decision making, are relative human concepts that change all the time.