What is your perspective on NK, are we close to exhausting all options or do you believe there is still a long ways to go?

On a scale of 1-10 where 10 is take military action, I'd say we are 8.5 to 9.

If the goal of military action is to stop him from a mass casualty attack, military action makes that possibility much more likely. Maybe he wipes out Seoul and Tokyo rather than Los Angeles, but if the US starts the war the repercussions from mass casualty strikes on our allies are going to cause us serious harm.

Nobody I've read in or formally in command thinks we can attack NK without hundreds of thousands or millions dead for our Pacific allies. How do we benefit by being seen as the instigator in such a scenario?

It's a really tricky thing. Diplomacy is obviously the best. As mentioned, a war would bring enormous casualties to South Korea and Japan. It would destabilize the region which is not great with China lurking. And not to mention the catastrophe it would be for our economy considering all those countries are such important trade partners.

You hope that there are people in government who have plans in place or working behind the scenes to make sure war doesn't break out. But it sure seems like the WH is a mess and Trump's idea of dealing with this is tweeting at China.

The ultimate goal is to protect the US.

Yes, I've read the same thing about massive casualties in SK.

We benefit by not having those number of massive casualties in the US in the short term future.

Umm, why?

They brought this disastrous mess into fruition in the first place, with an unconscionable bill that should have never seen the light of day.

Repeal.
Period.

Anything else is more socialist bullshit.

There are close to 30,000 US service personnel in South Korea. They would be among the casualties.

Because there are tens of millions of Americans dependent on it. And there are millions through no fault of their own (e.g. kids) that were just born in a poorer, less able etc. family.

I would have preferred a single payer option augmented by private insurance for those that wanted/could afford it.

I'm actually believe some baseline healthcare is the right of all Americans so am good with some socialist bullshit including free public education, social security etc.

However, I do think entitlements need to be reduced somehow and pro-growth tax policies to help grow the economy more (although I thought Obama did a good job considering where he started from).

That is true and I'm willing to bet the troops there would vote for "protecting US" vs "ultimate goal is avoiding military conflict" if it come down to one or the other to stop NK.

I'm actually in favor of removing US troops from SK or at least re-positioning them close by so they can respond when needed. Why are US troops still on the front line of the DMZ when SK is perfectly capable of training and beefing up their military?

It's a huge strategic advantage to have bases throughout the world.

Scaramucci’s fed-up wife filed for divorce while nine months pregnant | Page Six

I guess I can understand the divorce filing. If your husband couldn't be bothered to attend the birth of your premature child and just left a text instead, I'd be out too.

I would say it is at 6.5 and having been in a government I tell agency at one point stationed there that is at least something. There are many options we are choosing not do to the impact it would have on us or allies that would force China's, or South Korea's hand .
Among those things are banning all US companies AND citizens from conducting any business with China or South Korean business unless they stop money, oil and trade from going to South Korea.
Stationing nuclear bombers in the Asian theater and also a missile defense shield for Japan, SK and all of the western US.
Either increasing or reducing troops in SK.
There are other things that can be done.

Yes I believe this is true overall. I also think South Korea needs and can pull there own weight on the peninsula with us moving troops out some distance.
The casualty rate with a full conventional war not to even include nukes would be easily in the millions when you calculate civilians and military together on both sides.

Quite a few US civilians working for the military in South Korea as well. It's extremely short sighted to think they're not the first target for Un if we attack.

If we went public with a policy of, deaths for you, but not for us, we'd quickly lose all our allies. Sacrificing our allies will cause significant problems for us.

Weird, it's like a group only becomes allies with another group out of their own interests.

I seriously doubt we would go public with this and certainly not without some sort of obfuscation ...

oh wait, I guess with Trump its more likely

Thomas Jefferson wrote the Senate filibuster rule. Harry Reid & Obama killed it yesterday. Rule was in effect for over 200 years.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 22, 2013

Then that's where we differ.
That's an imaginary "right" you've invented.

"Free shit" is never "free", and there's limits to how much of it can be handed out ... but we have a lack of people with enough common sense to realize that these days.

So you would do away with free public education and social security?

I'm pretty sure that if we start a war and Seoul gets leveled that people will put two and two together.

It really is remarkable that you can find a tweet that contradicts everything he says.

I guess the scary thing about North Korea at this point is the President doesn't seem to really care outside of it being an opportunity to tweet. Tillerson seems to hate his job now that he realizes it require more than enriching his Exxon buds. Haley is really the only one I have any confidence in and her power is limited.

And if the hope is the President has some smart people beside him in a crisis. Take a look at what he's working with. A reality star from over a decade ago, a literal nazi sympathizer, a guy who talks about other staff members sucking their own cocks, and Corey Lewandowski.

You also thought Ebola was about to be airborne.

I'm between the two points of view here. I'm in favor of universal healthcare, but I don't really think most people who talk about it as a 'right' understand what rights are. The entire concept of having a right to have some kind of service or product provided to you would have confused the heck out of those who wrote about the foundation of most of the rights we enjoy today. Rights are about the liberty to perform an action, participate in society in a certain way, etc. Voting, free assembly, speech, bearing arms, protection from any police state tendencies, self-determination, etc., they all point that way.

Or see Rand Paul here:

Health Care: Sanders vs Paul - YouTube


Very few advocates of single-payer/universal health care seem willing to grapple directly with this idea. Calling something like health care a right is an absurdity.

I'll spend some time to review & meditate that thread and on the context of my position.

In the meantime, care to contribute to this topic?

What do you think about having a "right" to an attorney?

Someone I read labeled the photo, Reservoir Derps.

I've already contributed to this topic and I think your position is just as ridiculous here as it was in the Ebola topic, although there at least you weren't so casually discussing how we could trade South Korean lives for American safety.

Okay, I do formally disagree with your characterization of "casual" (have to protect myself from snippets in other future, non-related threads).

But thank you for your participation in this.

Rights aren't rights until they are. You can get caught up in semantics, but there are two definitions of "rights", one is legal entitlements, and the other is what is moral or just. Universal healthcare definitely meets one of those, and in other developed nations it meets both.

No more worries about NK:

PHEW!

Trump said he was going to eliminate ISIS in the first month of his presidency.

People excited about a war with North Korea should remember that Trump would be the guy leading it. That's far scarier than Ebola.

just got to grab un by the pussy.

I'm sorry I missed the universal healthcare debate.

Isn't the first right in the Declaration of Independence the right to "life"? Does that right only mean that once you are conceived, you have the right to be born? Or does it only mean that you have the right to not be killed by an illegal act that the government was formed to protect?

The more broad interpretation would seem to protect people's right to not die by allowing them access to healthcare. And if you are going to force people to carry fetuses to viability, don't you also have a responsibility to cover the cost of the care of the mother through birthing the child?

I understand that healthcare is a lot more complex than this, but I would like some interpretations of what the right to "life" really means.

It's never really been interpreted in courts one way or the other because the Declaration of Independence has never really been interpreted as creating its own legal restraints or imposing its own legal duties on the U.S. government once that government was formed. It just sets forth a legal justification for secession and independence.

We got this

No, I recognize that from a Constitutional "constructionist" perspective, there is not necessary a legal basis that it springs from. Though one could argue about "promot(ing) the general welfare".

But you would think that with so much emphasis on the "Founders" intent, that these particular words from the Founders would carry some added weight. But it doesn't seem to.

Figure out John Locke's intent with Life, Liberty, and Property/Estate and you'll understand what Jefferson meant.

Mooch is out.

Well that went well. Have to wonder if Bannon holds a little more sway than Mooch counted on before he made those comments. But who the hell knows with this WH anymore.

Sounds like Kelly immediately nixed him. A friend on FB just bemoaned the fact that he didn't even make it to the next season of SNL.

Scaramucci boasted about reporting directly to Trump and not John Kelly. It was Kelly’s decision to remove him.

:lol:



:lol: :lol: :lol:

Wonder if he'll say he resigned to spend more time with his family.

10 days. I wonder if he still has time to restore all of those old anti-Trump tweets.

What do you think Bannon is up to?

Some stars shine so bright that they burn out way too fast.

There's a country song in this. The poor guy lost his company, his wife, his tweets, and now his job.

Does Steve get to reclaim his spot as the one true Mooch?

Exclusive: Senate too divided to keep up healthcare push - Senator Hatch | Reuters