Ten oz

Pakistan is a Nuclear Power. Didn't stop us (U.S.) from sending our teams in after OBL. Hasn't stopped us from using drones and special forces on Paksitan's side of the Durand Line. Our use of force in Pakistan without their permission could very easily be considered acts of of war.

Segregation, Japanese interment, and etc existed under FDR. Anger still had its outlet.

What's so sad is that nearly everyone acknowledges this but still votes against their own self interest out of bigotry and or self righteousness. As dimreepr said we are a culture fixated on revenge. Many people vote in a vengeful way with the intent on hurting, not improving, things.

Every new thing North Korea does is considered a step beyond the redline. You insist their current capabilities have finally put the situation at critical mass but we have been here before. Bush laid out the threat posed by North Korea as urgent in his Axis of Evil speech. Simply possessing WMDs made North Korea an immediate threat to the U.S. and its neighbors was the claim. You say this time it is serious but such has always been said. In 93' when they conducted they first nuclear detonation test it was considered leaps beyond the redline. Perhaps you are too young or weren't following the news before and don't recall the rhetoric throughout the decades. Maybe this is the first time in real time you are reading headlines saying "this time" North Korea can do X, Y, and Z. It isn't new. This also is far from the first time the capability of a potential foe has been used to justify action. It is why we went into Iraq. Remember when headlines said Iraq was working on Nukes? How'd that turn out. Can you name a war started pre-emptively which in hindsight is not viewed as a mistake?

What is true today that wasn't true a year ago, 10yrs ago, 20yrs ago, etc? You say China is risking war but in my last post I outlined the challenge North Korea has posed to the U.S. for decades now. It seems that then only thing which has changed is the diplomatic experience and patience in White House. I don't think it is correct/fair to expect China to shift decades worth of policies over night because the new U.S. President only knows how to threaten. The position this White House finds itself in is not unique or new.

Interesting article by the Washington Post today outlining the close relationship North Korea had with Grenada at the end of the 70's into the early 80's and the impact Reagan's "Operation Urgent" had on the way North Korea views the U.S. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2017/08/09/the-reagan-era-invasion-that-drove-north-korea-to-develop-nuclear-weapons/?utm_term=.d3594dff2106 Reading about Reagan's invasion of Grenada got me thinking about the way relations with North Korea with North Korea has played out over time. The Nuceal program in North Korea has been known about since the 1980's. Every U.S. President for nearly 40yrs has had to deal with North Korea. Below are some key dates because they show how Donald Trump's last 3 predecessors were all challanged early by North Korea and dealing with North Korea persisted throughout their administrations. I think it is also important to note that despite belabored relations and political pressure from within a shot was never fired By Bill Clinton, George Bush, or Barrack Obama. Now we are just 7 month in to Trump's admin and 1985 - North Korea signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. They never fully complied. 1993- "On 1 April 1993, the IAEA concluded that North Korea was in non-compliance with its Safeguards Agreement, and referred this to the UN Security Council. Following UN Security Council resolution 825, which called upon the DPRK to reconsider its decision to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and allow weapons inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) into the country, North Korea "suspended the effectuation" of that withdrawal in June 1993 " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreed_Framework 1994 - " President Clinton approved a plan today to arrange more than $4 billion in energy aid to North Korea during the next decade in return for a commitment from the country's hard-line Communist leadership to freeze and gradually dismantle its nuclear weapons development program. " http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/19/world/clinton-approves-a-plan-to-give-aid-to-north-koreans.html?pagewanted=all 2001(03) - "by early 2001, some of us were questioning whether the agreement was the best way to achieve the goal of eliminating North Korea's nuclear capacity. And in October 2002, the North Koreans admitted to American diplomats that they had been operating a clandestine uranium enrichment program, in violation of the agreement and the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. In response, the West's oil shipments to North Korea were suspended, and the International Atomic Energy Agency unanimously adopted a resolution warning that the nuclear program was a violation of the North's commitments. In January 2003, North Korea formally withdrew from the nonproliferation treaty." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/15/opinion/what-bush-did-right-on-north-korea.html 2007 - President Bush, directly engaging the man he publicly called a “tyrant,” wrote a letter to North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-il, in which he held out the prospect of normalized relations with the United States if North Korea fully disclosed its nuclear programs and dismantled its nuclear reactor, administration officials said Thursday. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/world/asia/07korea.html 2009 - "Facing the first direct challenge to his administration by an emerging Nuclear Weapons state, President Obama declared Monday that the United States and its allies would “stand up” to North Korea hours after that country defied international sanctions and conducted what appeared to be its second nuclear test." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/26/world/asia/26nuke.html 2016 - "The Obama administration announced on Wednesday that it was imposing sanctions on North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un, personally, blacklisting the unpredictable ruler and top officials in his reclusive government for human rights abuses as he aggressively presses forward with his Nuclear ballistic Missile programs." https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/07/world/asia/obama-puts-sanctions-on-north-korean-leaders-for-human-rights-abuse.html -

If the sun blowing and eliminating your great great great great great great great grand children does not matter why does Lucy matter? If Lucy matters why do you justify so much B.S. via tribalism?

No one that "matters" experienced Lucy either. Regardless of handed along DNA one's own life and the lives of all potential carriers of genes end. The people you impact during your life will eventually be lost as will all lives effected by them and extra. There is no insulation for it. And that is okay. I have not existed before. We all have not existed before.

@ tar, all life eventually will end. The sun will engulf the earth. Eventually the universe will end like. As a result even holding out hope that out dna will continue on has an end. Nothing about us will exist for infinity. Life is finite no matter how one sings it.

@ tar, a little of us were there when the first fish took a breath of air. However I think the OP is referring to his mind/sense of self. It is the mind where a person would have issues coping.

It is all perspective though isn't it? Who writes the legal set of rules often determines who views those rules as fair. The U.S. is 5% of the world's population and consumes 25% of the world's resources. Some around the world consider that shameful or something to feel guilty about. The top 10% of wealthiest families in the world own 92% of the world's stock markets; "greed is good". Trump Twitter trolled his way to elected office and the GOP got themselves a lifetime SCOTUS appointment after shamelessly blocking Obama's pick for a year. I agree with you in spirit. I certainly wish what you are saying was absolute but it doesn't seem to be. Those without shame, without guilt, and etc certainly seem to be reaping the benefits of it.

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.