Trump warns N Korea that US military is 'locked and loaded' - BBC News

1SG (Join to see) - Let me add one more thing here. I wish that Trump would control his pronouncements ... be they vocal, tweets, or otherwise ... with greater rigor. Pretty close to the last thing I want to see in this world is resumption of the war with nK. Given that Trump, in my view imprudently, made a very strong statement regarding nK, it serves nobody's benefit except perhaps nK's and politicians that gain support among voters from attacking Trump, to undermine him, particularly in public. That increases the potential for a misjudgment by "this crazy fat kid that's running North Korea." I'm vaguely reminded of German, France, and Russia opposing a war authorization in the UN sought by the United States back in 2003. Their motivation for doing so isn't relevant. While it is impossible to know for sure, I sometimes wonder if Saddam Hussein would have taken Bahrain's asylum offer it those three countries had stood united with the U.S. Dissent, particularly after the fact, can have adverse and unintended consequences.

LTC (Join to see) - Google "strategic patience". Anyway, feel free to play the "it's just pretty damn close, I'm not saying it is" semantics card. It's clear you are placing more of the blame on McCain than the POTUS. That's odd to me given who controls the military; specifically our nuclear arsenal.

Sir, I'm still waiting for what Obama's failed policy was, especially given you haven't heard of his *actual* policy.... strategic patience.

1SG (Join to see) - This the one you are talking about?

[begin quote] It was clear what Obama officials were doing in 2013. The DIA report represented inconvenient facts that threatened President Obama’s North Korea “strategic patience” policy -- a policy to do nothing about North Korea and kick this problem down the road to the next president. Obama officials tried to downplay the DIA assessment to prevent it from being used to force the president to employ a more assertive North Korea policy. " [end quote]

That's nice but it isn't the one with which he came into office though it is the one with which he left office. This is where he was when he entered office:

[begin quote] Obama has asserted the need for "sustained, direct, and aggressive diplomacy" with North Korea. He pledged to be "firm and unyielding in our commitment to a non-nuclear Korean peninsula, and vowed not to "take the military option off the table" in order to achieve "the complete and verifiable elimination of all of North Korea's nuclear weapons programs, as well as its past proliferation activities, including with Syria."

But President Obama may be reticent to resort to any pressure tactics when confronted with North Korean intransigence or brinksmanship. The tendency during the past two years of the Bush administration has been to repeatedly acquiesce to Pyongyang's demands and lower the bar for compliance in return for a semblance of "progress" in the negotiations. How willing would Obama be to declare that diplomacy has failed to achieve U.S. objectives or that North Korea has not fulfilled its obligations? How long would he be willing to wait and what criteria would he use to determine diplomacy had been exhausted? [end quote]

As to McCain and Trump, you apparently didn't read my second comment to you. Let me make it very clear - I do wish that someone would put a cork in Trump's mouth and disable his little tweeting fingers. McCain, however, knows better than to run off at the mouth and is hypocritical in the extreme for castigating Trump for that which he has done himself on a number of occasions.

1SG (Join to see) - I think he rolled "strategic patience" out when he was 2/3 of the way into his two term presidency ... and in trouble on foreign policy ...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/obamas-new-motto-strategic-patience

Unfortunately the rational rest of the world saw it that way, including the North Koreans. They have likely checked one in the win tally for this and more importantly filed away the thought that Trump's threats are the same as theirs, done for political purposes and will not be followed through on.

MAJ James Woods - The Germans and the Japanese were dividing up the world. If the United States had not jumped into the war after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, I would be speaking German now and many of the folks on RP would be dead. Are you really trying to say things would have been better if we had stayed out of WW2?

Sometimes you have to take a stand against evil. North Korea and Iran are both looking for Nuclear Weapons as a way of changing the world as we know it. Are you saying we should just appease them and wait for the Nuc Flash?

MSgt James Mullis - I'm sure the Germans had said to Japan "What the hell?! Not America." Hahaha!
Remember, Germany was divided because neither U.S. nor Soviets wanted to concede possession to the other. Like the Germans and the Japanese were dividing up parts of the world (Man in the High Castle, great storyline), the U.S. and Soviets was doing the same thing in the form of political ideology. Thus Eastern vs. Western Europe was a political battleground. It wasn't about physical occupation but the conversion of nation governments to either democracy or communism. So yeah, WW2 saw two bullies take front stage exerting their influence on the rest of the world.
And no I'm not advocating appeasement but I'm sure as hell not advocating first strike either. We didn't advocate first strike on Pakistan or India or any other country that developed nuclear capability. And we know Iran isn't buying it that Israel doesn't have the capability. So yeah, face reality, in 72 years we have not been able to prevent a nation from achieving nuclear capability.

MAJ James Woods - Wow I agree with almost all of your last statement.

Your correct MSG Mullis unfortunately for all of us the next move is North Korea's.