[hrothgar]

ldrews, on 2017-November-11, 11:05, said:

If you think the US intelligence agencies tell the truth you are far more gullible than I thought.

I never claimed that the intelligence agencies always tell the truth.
I stated that Cheney and co deliberated misrepresented the intelligence.

This is one the the bureaucrats got right and the political appointees decided to invent their own reality.

[hrothgar]

ldrews, on 2017-November-11, 10:56, said:

I would consider that a failure. Now lets look at the other side of the equation. What if North Korea successfully nuclearizes and then subsequently kills millions of people. Is this success or failure?

I would consider this deeply regrettable.

In much he same way that I would consider it regrettable if the Russians killed millions of people or the Pakistani's killed millions of people or Israeli's or the French or the Chinese.

There are many nuclear sates out there.
Deterrence has proven effective in the past.
I hope that it will continue to prove effective this time around.

Regrettably, we can't like in a world where we are perfectly safe and we don't get to gamble with the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

Note my earlier comments about Iraq.

The US was scared.
We rolled the dice.
We killed more than half a million people with almost nothing to show for it.

This destroyed our credibility on the international stage.

If we attack North Korea and something goes wrong I think that the long term consequences are significantly worse than losing an American city.
The are certainly worse than the risk of losing an American city.

At the end of the day, I don't believe that the United States can decide that we are going to risk seeing Seoul destroy to protect against a (potential) attack against Seattle or San Francisco.

I find this morally unacceptable.

[RedSpawn]

ldrews, on 2017-November-11, 10:54, said:

That is a loaded question. First, my foreign policy success standard in the case of North Korea is to achieve a peaceful resolution. You are the one who seems intent on war and loss of life. Why is that?

You really do drop "smart bombs" (and I use that term loosely) in this forum without providing any context for your commentary.

I advocate neither war nor cowboy diplomacy nor gunboat diplomacy in North Korea. If you had read any of my previous postings about NK you would already know that. You, however, provide cherry-picked statistics and expect me to fall for the okie-doke. But there is a difference between you and me.

I do my homework and research consistently.

I also know what sand looks and tastes like, so I am not going to fall for your shenanigans or your mouth-watering talking points. Keep the mirage to yourself.

If you support an eventual military intervention for NK, then a collateral damage risk assessment is not a loaded question it's an unavoidable necessity. DO THE MATH!

No one wants to call thousands of families and apologize for wiping their kinfolk out of existence for the greater goal of toppling NK's regime. But that is the human toll we will have to pay for that kind of sick, military joy ride.

Source: https://www.npr.org/...rent-from-syria

[ldrews]

hrothgar, on 2017-November-11, 11:33, said:

I would consider this deeply regrettable.

In much he same way that I would consider it regrettable if the Russians killed millions of people or the Pakistani's killed millions of people or Israeli's or the French or the Chinese.

There are many nuclear sates out there.
Deterrence has proven effective in the past.
I hope that it will continue to prove effective this time around.

Regrettably, we can't like in a world where we are perfectly safe and we don't get to gamble with the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

Note my earlier comments about Iraq.

The US was scared.
We rolled the dice.
We killed more than half a million people with almost nothing to show for it.

This destroyed our credibility on the international stage.

If we attack North Korea and something goes wrong I think that the long term consequences are significantly worse than losing an American city.
The are certainly worse than the risk of losing an American city.

At the end of the day, I don't believe that the United States can decide that we are going to risk seeing Seoul destroy to protect against a (potential) attack against Seattle or San Francisco.

I find this morally unacceptable.

As a citizen of the US and with the US being the prime target of North Korea, I would find that more than just regrettable.

The US is once again scared.
Kim Jong Un continues to fan that fear.
The US may once again kill lots of people to assuage that fear.
You would think others would notice this pattern.

Moral acceptability often disappears when survival is at stake. People would rather survive to debate the morality afterwards. I know I would.

[ldrews]

RedSpawn, on 2017-November-11, 12:12, said:

You really do drop "smart bombs" (and I use that term loosely) in this forum without providing any context for your commentary.

I advocate neither war nor cowboy diplomacy nor gunboat diplomacy in North Korea. If you had read any of my previous postings about NK you would already know that. You, however, provide cherry-picked statistics and expect me to fall for the okie-doke. But there is a difference between you and me.

I do my homework and research consistently.

I also know what sand looks and tastes like, so I am not going to fall for your shenanigans or your mouth-watering talking points. Keep the mirage to yourself.

If you support an eventual military intervention for NK, then a collateral damage risk assessment is not a loaded question it's an unavoidable necessity. DO THE MATH!

No one wants to call thousands of families and apologize for wiping their kinfolk out of existence for the greater goal of toppling NK's regime. But that is the human toll we will have to pay for that kind of sick, military joy ride.

Source: https://www.npr.org/...rent-from-syria

So, please remind me, what do you advocate in North Korea?

And please be more specific so that I can reply, what shenanigans and mouth-watering talking points are you not going to fall for?

[hrothgar]

ldrews, on 2017-November-11, 12:24, said:

As a citizen of the US and with the US being the prime target of North Korea, I would find that more than just regrettable.

The US is once again scared.
Kim Jong Un continues to fan that fear.
The US may once again kill lots of people to assuage that fear.
You would think others would notice this pattern.

Moral acceptability often disappears when survival is at stake. People would rather survive to debate the morality afterwards. I know I would.

If North Korea nukes San Francisco or Dallas or Seattle or even Washington DC the US will survive.
Hell, we could lose all of them and the United States would survive

However, if the US adopts a foreign policy that says

"Lives of foreigners are worth less than those of our own people and if half a million SOuth Koreans lives is the cost for us feeling safe then so be it"...

that we can not survive because no one in their right mind wants to live in a world where countries like that are allowed to exist.

[RedSpawn]

ldrews, on 2017-November-11, 12:29, said:

So, please remind me, what do you advocate in North Korea?

And please be more specific so that I can reply, what shenanigans and mouth-watering talking points are you not going to fall for?

Let's start the bidding with the allegation that the 17-year low unemployment rate is attributable to Trump.

ldrews, on 2017-November-10, 18:51, said:

Since Trump was elected President unemployment has dropped to a 17 year low. http://money.cnn.com...port/index.html

Is this bad?

RedSpawn, on 2017-November-11, 05:45, said:

It's not bad, but it is very misleading.

The Unemployment Rate was at 7.6% when Obama receiving a stinking pile of $hit economy from President Bush in 2009. When Obama left in January 2017 the unemployment rate was 4.7%.

It is now 4.1% which is technically a 17-year low. So are you suggesting Trump deserves credit for lowering the needle for 0.6% in less than a year?

You can't spout a statistic and ask is this good or bad without providing the proper data point sets over time. We must be intellectually honest here.

There is a reason the unemployment rate dropped from 7.6% to 4.7% under Obama and from 4.7% to 4.1% under Trump but you have to be very careful about how you attribute these changes in labor rate participation to Presidential leadership.



Sources:
http://infographic.s...ment_rate_n.jpg
https://www.bls.gov/...b/wk2/art02.htm

You intended to make Trump look like a savvy business man because of our low unemployment rate, but he inherited a sizeable portion of this 17-year low from an Obama Presidency.

We in the industry call your statistic a classic "okie-doke" metric. Sheeple who are desperate for any leadership would fall for this mirage and drink it not realizing that the mouth-watering statistic is really just sand.

[ldrews]

hrothgar, on 2017-November-11, 12:33, said:

If North Korea nukes San Francisco or Dallas or Seattle or even Washington DC the US will survive.
Hell, we could lose all of them and the United States would survive

However, if the US adopts a foreign policy that says

"Lives of foreigners are worth less than those of our own people and if half a million SOuth Koreans lives is the cost for us feeling safe then so be it"...

that we can not survive because no one in their right mind wants to live in a world where countries like that are allowed to exist.

How naive are you? That has been the story of humanity since it began. The members of my tribe are more valuable than the members of your tribe. Get real!

[ldrews]

RedSpawn, on 2017-November-11, 12:39, said:

Let's start the bidding with the allegation that the 17-year low unemployment rate is attributable to Trump.



We in the industry call your statistic a classic "okie-doke" metric. Sheeple who are desperate for any leadership would fall for this mirage and drink it not realizing that the mouth-watering statistic is really just sand.

So are you asserting that the drop in unemployment rate is not attributable to Trump? Seems highly unlikely that all of the economic indicators that have improved during the last year are unrelated to Trump's actions/policies. To what do you attribute those improvements?

[RedSpawn]

ldrews, on 2017-November-11, 12:52, said:

So are you asserting that the drop in unemployment rate is not attributable to Trump? Seems highly unlikely that all of the economic indicators that have improved during the last year are unrelated to Trump's actions/policies. To what do you attribute those improvements?

A 17-year unemployment low is NOT mostly attributable to Trump.

It's Trump riding the financial tailwind of Obama's Presidency as the unemployment rate fell from a high of 10% full-on after the housing bubble collapse of Wall Street during the Bush Era to a low of 4.7% in JANUARY 2017. ===> inauguration month.

You made it seem like this 17 year low is attributable to Trump and it's not. He reduced unemployment by at best 0.6% and that is not a statistically significant difference from 4.7%. In addition, there isn't enough lead time to measure the full impact of Trumps's policies on unemployment in a period of less than one year.

His Secretary of Labor was sworn into office on April 28, 2017!

Source: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/osec

Trump has not caused a 17-year low unemployment rate. LOOK AT THE CHART below and all of the data points. He is a benefactor of Obama's policies and was not handed a stinking pile of $hit economy.

[RedSpawn]

http://www.breitbart...-low-age-trump/

This makes me wanna puke! Like pigs to the trough, so are the days of our lives.

Alternate universe of data points.

[Winstonm]

This is actually sillier and more lame than reported initially:

Quote

"Every time he sees me he says, 'I didn't do that,' and I really believe, that when he tells me that, he means it,” Trump said. ”But he says, 'I didn't do that.' I think he is very insulted by it, if you want to know the truth. Don’t forget. All he said was he never did that, he didn’t do that. I think he is very insulted by it, which is not a good thing for our country.”

Trump dismissed the meddling allegations as driven by Democrats, warning that the heavy focus on the issue threatens the United States’ ability to partner with Russia on key issues. He asserted that the allegations could fray the U.S.-Russia relationship so badly that the country could be less willing to cooperate on North Korea, Syria and other international crises — an outcome that would put lives at risk.

“This artificial Democratic hit job gets in the way and that’s a shame because people will die because of it,” he said. “And it’s a pure hit job.”

“Everybody knows there was no collusion,” he continued. “I think it’s a shame that something like this can destroy a very important potential relationship between two countries that are very important countries Russia could really help us.”

A lack of collusion does not mean that Russia did not attack the election process.

[ldrews]

Winstonm, on 2017-November-11, 14:17, said:

This is actually sillier and more lame than reported initially:


A lack of collusion does not mean that Russia did not attack the election process.

Absolutely, just like the US, China, and other nations mess with other nation's elections. So what is new?

[Al_U_Card]

Cui bono? Motivation counts.
NK has no oil, has not used euros or gold to subvert petrodollar supremacy (Do they import enough of anything to make a diiference?) and there are no US corporate holdings there to "protect". BUT they do have an existential threat in a nuclear capability (I am sure that China, at least, knows just how many...) so that possibility can be used to instill fear in the US citizenry so.....
Seems likely that they will remain a paper tiger for some time.

[Winstonm]

For those who refuse to think for themselves, it is important due to Trump's denial of Russian interference and acceptance of Putin's word over his own intelligence officers combined with his attack as political the motivations of the 4 independent intelligence services who fingered Russia and Putin.

It's a big deal when the president sides with the enemy over his own people.

[Zelandakh]

ldrews, on 2017-November-11, 10:54, said:

First, my foreign policy success standard in the case of North Korea is to achieve a peaceful resolution.

OK, so if this is your definition of addressing the NK issue, what is it you think that DT has done towards achieving this goal beyond what was being done previously?

[Al_U_Card]

Winstonm, on 2017-November-11, 16:24, said:

For those who refuse to think for themselves, it is important due to Trump's denial of Russian interference and acceptance of Putin's word over his own intelligence officers combined with his attack as political the motivations of the 4 independent intelligence services who fingered Russia and Putin.

It's a big deal when the president sides with the enemy over his own people.

Kennedy/Kruschev? Nixon/Mao? Reagan/Gorbachev? Replace Intelligence with Ulterior Motive and you have your answer.
.

[Winstonm]

Not even the same universe.

[ldrews]

Zelandakh, on 2017-November-11, 16:51, said:

OK, so if this is your definition of addressing the NK issue, what is it you think that DT has done towards achieving this goal beyond what was being done previously?

I was asked my standard for success, not my prescription for addressing the issue.

I don't remember previous presidents actively engaging with China, Russia, Japan, and others to impose severe sanctions on North Korea to try to convince them that cooperation is the better choice. I don't remember other presidents countering Kim Jong Un's bluster with even bigger bluster to try to communicate that bluster is not going to work. Can you give counter examples?

[ldrews]

Winstonm, on 2017-November-11, 17:49, said:

Not even the same universe.

You are welcome to return to this universe when you are done with your fantasies.