[Emitt Evan Baker]

Originally Posted by John Whitworth

And most of the North Koreans would rather live in South Korea, or anywhere.

No doubt. But the question is what actions make an opening in that society more likely and what actions would just add more suffering to those folks. And Ann's post...again.

As for Trump, all I can imagine from that comment is that somehow the distance between here and where you are is dulling the clear identifying marks of his species and intents as well as the use he is making of his position.

[John Riley]

To learn about the only problem with Trump that matters go read these direct quotes from the transcripts reporters kept while he was flying to Paris the other day. They're scary as hell. Not only does he know nothing about policy or human nature or history or anything else he is incapable of learning. He lacks the capacity to "bone up" on a subject. He is not interested in the least in anything but what he can brag about. So all the other jabber or attempt to take an angled look on what he says about North Korea or anything else is ridiculous. You'd get better guidance from a crystal gazer in Arizona.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/13/u...ranscript.html

[Mark McDonnell]

Absolutely John. The man is a narcissistic imbecile. The 'Trump problem' goes beyond partisan issues of left and right. It's unprecedented. There's a dangerous joke version of a President in office. The world has taken too dizzying a turn to the surreal for my liking recently...

[John Whitworth]

I would have thought the utter destruction of North Korean 'society' would be good. If it could be done without killing a lo of people that would be good too.

Of course we could do nothing at all except wring our hands and cry Mea maxima culpa. That would probably make us feel better. I believe it is called virtue signalling. Wouldn't do anything for the North Koreans of course.

[Emitt Evan Baker]

Originally Posted by John Whitworth

I would have thought the utter destruction of North Korean 'society' would be good. If it could be done without killing a lo of people that would be good too.

Of course we could do nothing at all except wring our hands and cry Mea maxima culpa. That would probably make us feel better. I believe it is called virtue signalling. Wouldn't do anything for the North Koreans of course.

Virtue signalling, huh? Have you ever seen what shrapnel does to human organs when it utterly destroys a "society"? Like up close. Smelt the guts mixing with the blood? Watched the person drown in the animal terror. I have a signal for you: F*%k war and any disinterested cheerleaders for it who don't plan on being on the ground for the event.

[Matt Q]

John,

Virtue signalling is "the conspicuous expression of moral values done primarily with the intent of enhancing standing within a social group". It's a phrase that has come to be increasingly used by some on the right when anyone raises any ethical concern about anything. It's saying, "you're just saying that to make yourself look like a good person". It's an ad hominem argument par excellence. It's a great way to avoid any sort of discussion of the ethics of anything whilst casting aspersions on another's character.

Matt

[John Riley]

The world has taken too dizzying a turn to the surreal for my liking recently...

Mark,

It is obvious that the West is going through a period when those resistant to modernity are in a lather. As the saying goes, the world is much smaller now. People can move more and will continue to be able to do so. The world is growing closer together and this panics many people. There are those who actually say that they are opposed "to the free movement of peoples" without knowing or caring how barbaric it is. Trump's support comes primarily from voters freaked out about the changing world. They want a wall for God's sake. It's the same across the Atlantic. The typical next step (I won't say natural next step because it doesn't have to happen) will be for Trump--and others--to find a people to attack. We both know that Trump will soon be blowing the horn for a conflict. It will probably be in North Korea because he seems to think he can solve the troubles in the Middle East around a table.

We don't live in a time when change and discovery is valued. Our lives are being spent in a medieval era. 58% of Republicans think colleges are bad for America. The entire administration rejects science. The lie that capitalism will always embrace change and be innovative is exposed. Huge corporations that make their billions off of the current energy-delivery structure are the most change resistant organizations in the U.S. This is what Reaganism has wrought. I cannot bear to think of what type of cataclysm it will take to bring this madness to an end.

[Quincy Lehr]

Don't call me a liberal or associate me with them.

Originally Posted by William A. Baurle

Nikki Haley's speech (It's a youtube link because the other vid links are jitterbugging for me, but the video can be seen all over):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIOinfm4sEY

IOW, no, Quincy, you are wrong. The USA does not want to start a war, but is trying to forestall it with a show of force, after the supreme leader in NK started playing with his new toys.

Liberal logic seems to be: crazy tyrant The supreme leader in the other nation is NOT the bad guy. OH NO, never! It's America that's the baddie. Kim can do whatever the hell he damn well pleases, and liberals in the West will not say a single negative thing about him, even though his own people are under oppression.

[Kyle Norwood]

Of course, "the US is morally compelled . . . to intercept a nuclear missile aimed toward a densely populated US city." And of course, the day we face that decision will almost certainly be the most catastrophic day in human history, regardless of whether that missile gets through our defenses or not. Let's hope we can find ways to avoid that day.

I hang around soft-headed lefties and watch lefty TV like MSNBC (and am a soft-headed lefty of some sort myself), and I have never heard anyone speak a good word for Kim Jong Il. Matt Q, a while ago, had addressed this issue with regard to England, and said he couldn't speak for the U.S., so I just wanted to testify to an equal lack of left-wing enthusiasm for Kim Jong Il over here. So I don't know who William Baurle was describing when he suggested otherwise.

[Emitt Evan Baker]

I think this is relevant:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/preside...ilians-per-day

Not in any way soft peddling the deaths under Obama. The only way out of the corner Trump is in now will be a violent crisis.