Former President and Convicted Felon Trump Thread

[Eriol]

@Sara_2814, until you answer what TO YOU is necessary for military action, there's no point debating the rest of it. I've asked you twice very clearly and politely, and then when you keep evading and not responding, you post rants about how I want to kill everybody, body counts, etc.

Unless there IS a point at which you're willing to stand up and take military action, then the rest of it doesn't matter. North Korea will literally do whatever the fuck they want with no military consequences. PERIOD. I'm not interested in a fake debate that doesn't matter because my opponent goes into all the downsides of my position, but is never willing to TAKE a position themselves. And then you start in on how even if Guam (over 100k people from what I've read) is nuked, you're more than subtly implying that you still should not go to war over that, since they will not "come back to life" via such action.


When you say "if NK does (insert action here) I think the war should resume" then I'll engage with you on the rest of why it might still be a bad idea or not. But until then, there's no point.

 

[Dave]

You can't just draw a line in the sand and say, "If this happens, then invade!" Reality is more nuanced than that. Setting up ultimatums with no serious thought of going through them leads us to things like Syria and the invasion of the Ukraine. Unless NK attacks someone else first, we should in no way invade them. Let them bluster and blow, it does nothing. Sanctions do nothing but harm the populace. Kim Jung Un is a windbag who doesn't plan on doing shit. Trump has fallen for this bluster because he's a fucking idiot.

 

[PatrThom]

Bill Clinton jumpstarted their nuclear program 20 years ago.

I thought the Clinton thing...failed?

--Patrick

 

[GasBandit]

I thought the Clinton thing...failed?

--Patrick

It failed in that we delivered our part of the deal... in 1994 we gave them reactors, oil, and equipment... they did what they always do. We found out in 2002 that they restarted their nuclear weapons program in 1998.

 

[Denbrought]

Unlike a subpoena, a warrant requires probably cause...just sayin'

Probable cause to search is very different from probable cause to arrest: Popehat - We Interrupt This Grand Jury Lawsplainer For A Search Warrant Lawsplainer

 

[Eriol]

You can't just draw a line in the sand and say, "If this happens, then invade!" Reality is more nuanced than that. Setting up ultimatums with no serious thought of going through them leads us to things like Syria and the invasion of the Ukraine.

Syria, where Obama had a "red line" and then did nothing?

Ukraine... which I don't think your country or mine was involved in at all?

What point are you making here?

Unless NK attacks someone else first, we should in no way invade them. Let them bluster and blow, it does nothing. Sanctions do nothing but harm the populace. Kim Jung Un is a windbag who doesn't plan on doing shit. Trump has fallen for this bluster because he's a fucking idiot.

Dave, I hope you're right. I don't think you are, but I HOPE you are. I'm skeptical of the strategy of letting him get nuclear-armed, INVADE somebody (SK), and THEN intervene. That's IMO way more dangerous than the alternatives.

 

[Eriol]

Fairly good Rolling Stone article on this: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/timeline-of-the-north-korean-nuclear-threat-w496701
Has a history of how this came about, plus what's possible/probable from here.

 

[Dave]

Syria, where Obama had a "red line" and then did nothing?

Ukraine... which I don't think your country or mine was involved in at all?

In Syria that red line is exactly what I'm talking about. For the Ukraine, it was more of assurances from the West that we would help them enforce their sovereignty, and then we did nothing but bluster when Russia invaded Crimea. In the first instance, it was a failure of intelligence that we couldn't immediately prove whether the aggressors were our allies or enemies (and if we could even tell who was who there) and in the case of Ukraine we had to look hard whether we would rather get into a war with Russia or cede them territory. THAT example is much closer to your nazi Germany example, yet I don't recall seeing you advocating for the invasion of Russia.

What my point is, is that toothless bluster - the kind for which Trump is (in)famous, is not only the wrong tactic to take in nearly every instance, but is actively destructive and dangerous. NK is like the dog on the leash that can really do nothing to anyone but bark and act all mean, but really won't hurt anyone. Trump is the kid who thinks he's tough so he's standing just outside of range and taunting the dog. It's just not smart. NOTHING he does is smart.

Here is a great picture of Kim Jung Un and Trump arguing.

 

[Sara_2814]

@Sara_2814, until you answer what TO YOU is necessary for military action, there's no point debating the rest of it. I've asked you twice very clearly and politely, and then when you keep evading and not responding, you post rants about how I want to kill everybody, body counts, etc.

Unless there IS a point at which you're willing to stand up and take military action, then the rest of it doesn't matter. North Korea will literally do whatever the fuck they want with no military consequences. PERIOD. I'm not interested in a fake debate that doesn't matter because my opponent goes into all the downsides of my position, but is never willing to TAKE a position themselves. And then you start in on how even if Guam (over 100k people from what I've read) is nuked, you're more than subtly implying that you still should not go to war over that, since they will not "come back to life" via such action.


When you say "if NK does (insert action here) I think the war should resume" then I'll engage with you on the rest of why it might still be a bad idea or not. But until then, there's no point.

When you say that the potential for casualties is irrelevant to a discussion about initiating military actions, that proves you know jack shit about this topic.

I've already answered your question: Diplomacy until it's exhausted, with military actions based on resources, intel, and international cooperation, along with a consideration for potential casualties and the political/social outcomes. I don't know what other answer you're looking for from me, but a complex topic requires complex answers. It's quaint how simplistic you think military decisions are.

 

[GasBandit]

Diplomacy until it's exhausted

That's a very nebulous statement, is what I think Eriol is trying to say. No matter what happens, there will be those who say there's still a diplomatic option, and there will be those who say diplomacy stopped being effective long ago. What Eriol is asking you is, can you name any action that North Korea can take that will prompt you to say "ok, NOW there needs to be war?" Because otherwise, "Diplomacy until it is exhausted" is just political fancyjabber for "war is never an option."

It's quaint how simplistic you think military decisions are.

CaptainAmericaGetsThatReference.gif

 

[Sara_2814]

That's a very nebulous statement, is what I think Eriol is trying to say. No matter what happens, there will be those who say there's still a diplomatic option, and there will be those who say diplomacy stopped being effective long ago. What Eriol is asking you is, can you name any action that North Korea can take that will prompt you to say "ok, NOW there needs to be war?" Because otherwise, "Diplomacy until it is exhausted" is just political fancyjabber for "war is never an option."


CaptainAmericaGetsThatReference.gif

There are lots of terrible things Kim could do that would warrant military action--nuking people, raising humans to eat them, providing a foothold for an alien invasion of lizard people, unleashing a Korean Justin Bieber on the world--I could go on and on and on coming up with scenarios all day long. Which is a pointless exercise, because I could do the same thing for Canada (as I stated earlier). But Eriol was initially talking about invading NK for having nukes, in which case no, we should not be invading countries for being a potential threat. Especially when it could instigate military action with a larger threat (China) and result in a lot of casualties (as I stated earlier). Nevermind the utter stupidity of starting yet another conflict when we are already stretched thin on the ones we already have (stated earlier). Even if NK attacks, it's important to have a response that does not escalate into a war with China (As I stated earlier). And in THIS situation with NK, right now, I think a diplomatic solution in cooperation with China is the best course of action. Which--AGAIN--I already stated earlier. But none of this is apparently an acceptable answer, because he's demanding a simple answer to a complex situation.

 

[GasBandit]

And there Eriol gets his answer - snide lizardmen stories aside, Sara's line in the sand is actual use of nuclear weapons.

Granted, it's not one I think he agrees with, but it definitely shows that there is a line.

 

[DarkAudit]

Throwing this out here because the idea just popped into my head, but if we were dealing with a rational *American* side (or if they just left Cheeto out of the loop), consider the possibility that China could invade first in order to make sure NK doesn't go nuclear. They're the only friend NK has in the region, and hopefully would keep the matter as small a scale as possible.

Not that any invasion is desirable, but this could be the best of the worst case scenarios.

 

[Sara_2814]

And there Eriol gets his answer - snide lizardmen stories aside, Sara's line in the sand is actual use of nuclear weapons.

Granted, it's not one I think he agrees with, but it definitely shows that there is a line.

Weeeelllll, you missed the part where the response must be measured in relation to outcome. If China is on board and it's a cooperative action against NK for a missile attack--yes, okay, we can probably remove Kim. If China will retaliate against us for taking military action against NK--then we better do some careful consideration (and maybe try that diplomacy again) before starting a military conflict, because that outcome would be pretty horrific.

Sorry, but "lines in the sand" = Zero Tolerance Policies to me. They are both stupid because they treat the world as simplistic and black & white.

 

[GasBandit]

Throwing this out here because the idea just popped into my head, but if we were dealing with a rational *American* side (or if they just left Cheeto out of the loop), consider the possibility that China could invade first in order to make sure NK doesn't go nuclear. They're the only friend NK has in the region, and hopefully would keep the matter as small a scale as possible.

Not that any invasion is desirable, but this could be the best of the worst case scenarios.

I'm not sure that would prevent a nuclear scenario. If anything, China is easier for them to hit. NK has nuclear weapons, the stumbling block is their short range.

And even without rockets, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that the Kim regime has a "last act of defiance" type nuclear deadman's switch set to scorch and salt the earth of his own country (and any nearby areas) should he lose.[DOUBLEPOST=1502314506,1502314421][/DOUBLEPOST]

Weeeelllll, you missed the part where the response must be measured in relation to outcome. If China is on board and it's a cooperative action against NK for a missile attack--yes, okay, we can probably remove Kim. If China will retaliate against us for taking military action against NK--then we better do some careful consideration (and maybe try that diplomacy again) before starting a military conflict, because that outcome would be pretty horrific.

Sorry, but "lines in the sand" = Zero Tolerance Policies to me. They are both stupid because they treat the world as simplistic and black & white.

So you're saying that even if NK worked the kinks out of their ICBMs and pre-emptively nuked Los Angeles, even THAT would not demand military action, unless the Chinese sign off on it?

 

[Gruebeard]

And there Eriol gets his answer - snide lizardmen stories aside, Sara's line in the sand is actual use of nuclear weapons.

Granted, it's not one I think he agrees with, but it definitely shows that there is a line.

Even that might not be her line, though. I mean, if they lure Justin Bieber to a remote North Pacific island and nuke that, I think she'd be okay with that.



Of course, that would unleash Biebzilla on the world . . .

 

[DarkAudit]

I'm not sure that would prevent a nuclear scenario. If anything, China is easier for them to hit. NK has nuclear weapons, the stumbling block is their short range.

I didn't say it was a *good* idea, just the best of the worst.

 

[GasBandit]

The straight-up truth of the matter is diplomacy doesn't "work" with North Korea and never has. "Diplomacy" has only ever been a vehicle for the Kims to extort resources and funds from other nations while proceeding to do what they wanted to all along anyway. Every diplomatic interaction with North Korea since the 90s has been absolutely meaningless, if not harmful to the interests of the US and its allies.

But as I said earlier, there are reasons we can't just roll on up and Shock and Awe NK into a parking lot - and most of them have to do with the neighbors. SK and Japan are our allies and would suffer greatly, and China could potentially be antagonized into opposition.

The US would be morally justified in invading NK at any time, and that has been the case for as long as I've been aware North Korea was an entity that existed, even before it had a nuclear program. The DPRK is a mass-murdering oppressive dictatorial regime that has caused enough death and suffering among its own people to easily sit at the same table as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao Tse Tung.

The issue is how much collateral damage are we willing to stomach in the process, and how many of our own lives and how much of our own treasure are we willing to spend doing so? Especially given that we are already engaged elsewhere. The answer seems to be, not much.

And so we continue waiting to see if the horse will laugh. Who knows? We could be surprised and the Kim regime could collapse "out of nowhere" tomorrow, like the USSR did.

 

[Krisken]

This is why you don't get your information from memes, even if you really want to believe it.


http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...image-wrongly-blames-bill-clinton-giving-nor/

 

[Dave]

Man I hate it when facts get in the way of finger-pointing and partisan hackery.

And one more thing to Eriol about a ramp-up to an invasion. The necessary movement of troops and the support behind them would be obvious. It's like when in Civilization when you are massing at someone's border to attack. You can't just say, "Poof! We're here!" It is a massive logistical effort to put enough troops on the ground to be able to invade a country. And when those troops started massing NK would have nothing left to lose. So we're not just looking at a military solution, we have to be looking at a careful buildup of forces so as not to trigger any suspicion from an already paranoid person. It just wouldn't be possible.

Granted, we could bomb the ever-loving shit out of them, but we'd still have to move the hardware into place to be able to do this. And I doubt the dumbass in chief wouldn't be able to keep his mouth shut and he'd tweet out that the submarines and ships are on their way to start bombing.

 

[Hailey Knight]

Eriol, if the U.S. invades North Korea, in which platoon would one find you? So we can write letters while your actions back up your words.

 

[Sara_2814]

I'm not sure that would prevent a nuclear scenario. If anything, China is easier for them to hit. NK has nuclear weapons, the stumbling block is their short range.

And even without rockets, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that the Kim regime has a "last act of defiance" type nuclear deadman's switch set to scorch and salt the earth of his own country (and any nearby areas) should he lose.[DOUBLEPOST=1502314506,1502314421][/DOUBLEPOST]
So you're saying that even if NK worked the kinks out of their ICBMs and pre-emptively nuked Los Angeles, even THAT would not demand military action, unless the Chinese sign off on it?

No. Yet again, I'm saying complex situations require complex analysis and complex responses, and can't be reduced to simplistic sound bite "line in the sand" responses.

And for your scenario, I'd cut a deal with the lizardmen to turn on their puppet, Kim, and convince them to coax Biebzilla over to destroy Pyongyang. If China tries to start shit over it, I'll have the lizardmen send Biebzilla on a rampage up to Beijing. Unfortunately, the deal involves giving them Bieb's homeland in return, to farm human slaves. Sorry, Canada! But casualties of war are irrelevant and decisions had to be made to avenge LA.

 

[HCGLNS]

The White House has a giant chicken.

 

[PatrThom]

The White House has a giant chicken.

--Patrick

 

[HCGLNS]

No, an actual giant chicken.

 

[GasBandit]

No. Yet again, I'm saying complex situations require complex analysis and complex responses, and can't be reduced to simplistic sound bite "line in the sand" responses.

Eriol (and now me, apparently) is trying to get you to acknowledge that there IS SOME POINT where immediate military engagement is required, regardless of "nuance and complexities." After that, it's just a debate about where that point actually is. But if you won't deign to agree that there is a realistically feasible point where the US is justified going to war with NK, regardless of how any other country feels about it, then you're just using fanciful dissembling to not have to say out loud that you will never consider war to be justified, because there will always be a "complexity" to be found and held up as a reason to oppose it. I'm beginning to suspect you actually understand this, and are equivocating intentionally to avoid a debate in which you don't think you'll fare well.

You're undermining your own position with the flippant lizardman stuff, incidentally. It says you equate a Nork nuke attack with the same level of fantasy as alien lizards, when nuking Guam is supposedly possible now, and a mainland US target is projected to be possible within 15 years.

Eriol, if the U.S. invades North Korea, in which platoon would one find you? So we can write letters while your actions back up your words.

Hah, now there's a fallacious argument I haven't seen in at least a decade...

This is why you don't get your information from memes, even if you really want to believe it.


http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...image-wrongly-blames-bill-clinton-giving-nor/

As is common with many politifact articles (because they are, in fact, very left-biased), that article reframes the argument in a way that is easy to disprove. There's a term for that - it's called the straw man fallacy. By characterizing the argument as "Bill Clinton gave NK nukes," it becomes easy to disprove because that claim is easily demonstrated to be false. But the truth of the matter is that the Clinton administration DID give money, energy, and nuclear-tech equipment to North Korea in exchange for an agreement to stop pursuing nuclear weapons - an agreement NK immediately violated. Because that's what they do. However, the agreement did make the west complacent and eased pressure and scrutiny off of North Korea's nuclear program for 8 years, until its violations were discovered in 2002 and the Bush administration cut the deal off. Clinton apologists go on to try to couch this as his deal having "delayed" the NK nuclear program, when in fact it just accelerated it.

I'll save everybody the time for how the rest of this debate goes - you'll accuse me of some sort of rhetorical chicanery and act like your subsequent refusal to take part in discussion is somehow proof of the validity of your stance.

 

[Sara_2814]

You're "trying to get me to say"? I've already said a military response can be appropriate. You're both just choosing to ignore it.

And my lizardmen response is just as realistic as dreaming up random North Korea Attacks! scenarios that disregard real world logistics and casualty counts.

 

[GasBandit]

You're "trying to get me to say"? I've already said a military response can be appropriate. You're both just choosing to ignore it.

I thought you had, and I said so, but then you gainsayed me and corrected me to point out that you said it "can be appropriate" when "complexities" were taken into account and responses had to be measured and all kind of other wafflespeak that contradicted you having said so.

We're not choosing to ignore it, you're choosing to attach riders, addenda, and apostrophes to your statement, when what has been asked of you is a statement devoid of qualifiers.

Just a yes or no. If North Korea uses a nuclear weapon on an American city, America can and must use military force against North Korea. Yes or no? No other modifiers.

 

[Dei]

The White House has a giant chicken.

http://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/massive-inflatable-chicken-with-orange-hair-taunts-white-house/

 

[Sara_2814]

I thought you had, and I said so, but then you gainsayed me and corrected me to point out that you said it "can be appropriate" when "complexities" were taken into account and responses had to be measured and all kind of other wafflespeak that contradicted you having said so.

We're not choosing to ignore it, you're choosing to attach riders, addenda, and apostrophes to your statement, when what has been asked of you is a statement devoid of qualifiers.

Just a yes or no. If North Korea uses a nuclear weapon on an American city, America can and must use military force against North Korea. Yes or no? No other modifiers.

Man, I wish I had a simple life that wasn't full of riders, addenda, and apostrophes. Must be nice.

Okay, fine. Yes. Start a war with China no matter what because LINE IN THE SAND. It's not going to matter to me, becuase I live next to a Stratcom base so I'm getting nuked in the first wave. Your war with China is not going to be my problem (except for a few seconds of intense heat).

 

[GasBandit]

Shit, I meant asterisks, not apostrophes.

DEBATE LOST

 

[Krisken]

As is common with many politifact articles (because they are, in fact, very left-biased), that article reframes the argument in a way that is easy to disprove. There's a term for that - it's called the straw man fallacy. By characterizing the argument as "Bill Clinton gave NK nukes," it becomes easy to disprove because that claim is easily demonstrated to be false. But the truth of the matter is that the Clinton administration DID give money, energy, and nuclear-tech equipment to North Korea in exchange for an agreement to stop pursuing nuclear weapons - an agreement NK immediately violated. Because that's what they do. However, the agreement did make the west complacent and eased pressure and scrutiny off of North Korea's nuclear program for 8 years, until its violations were discovered in 2002 and the Bush administration cut the deal off. Clinton apologists go on to try to couch this as his deal having "delayed" the NK nuclear program, when in fact it just accelerated it.

I'll save everybody the time for how the rest of this debate goes - you'll accuse me of some sort of rhetorical chicanery and act like your subsequent refusal to take part in discussion is somehow proof of the validity of your stance.

A blog and The Federalist. Jesus christ. Well, I'm convinced now.

 

[Dave]

Fact checking sites are always "left leaning" because the right's head is so far up its own ass it can no longer distinguish the truth from lies. And instead of education or admitting they were wrong, they attack the source. It's kind of their MO.

 

[Sara_2814]

Shit, I meant asterisks, not apostrophes.

DEBATE LOST

LOL, figured it was a typo. Or maybe a personal peeve. Simplified grammar for simplified political solutions!

 

[Hailey Knight]

Hah, now there's a fallacious argument I haven't seen in at least a decade...

It suits Eriol's Bush era sentiments then.