Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

You cannot erase human rights violations in the past

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by g8orbill, Jun 12, 2018.

  1. 92gator

    92gator GC Hall of Fame

    6,219
    827
    458
    Jun 14, 2007
    Well, which ones have we come closest to attacking, and which ones have we targeted the most?

    Iran and N.kor are right up there, as perennial top 5 contenders for our attention.

    ergo 'targets', by virtue of their nuclear aspirations.
     
  2. mdgator05

    mdgator05 GC Hall of Fame

    7,700
    486
    378
    Dec 9, 2010
    Well, prepare for that threat to be nuclear soon. Because the way to get concessions from Trump is to develop nuclear capabilities. He won't even make you stop development to start giving you concessions.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. mdgator05

    mdgator05 GC Hall of Fame

    7,700
    486
    378
    Dec 9, 2010
    And yet, not a single attack on them. And we have attacked a bunch of countries without nuclear weapons.
     
  4. 92gator

    92gator GC Hall of Fame

    6,219
    827
    458
    Jun 14, 2007
    We attacked Iraq the first time, because they not only posed a threat to another country, but actually acted on it;

    We attacked Iraq the second time, because they obstinately refused to uphold terms of surrender from the first engagement, directly wrt WMD.

    NB: nukes are a type of WMD.

    WMD of any type, puts you on the radar--the green light/invite to attack, is posing an imminent threat to deploy same on us or our allies, or actually doing so.

    That's why we haven't attacked them--not because we were afraid of their 2-3 nukes.

    They know this--which is why they haven't crossed any lines giving us leave to engage them militarily.
     
  5. T3goalie

    T3goalie Premium Member

    3,570
    397
    298
    Apr 3, 2007
    I wonder how FDR and Churchill sat down with Stalin with his record attitude towards human rights/ life? Wonder why? Hmmm.

    Imperfect world and imperfect people.... Some countries have tyrants. Ignoring them does not make them go away!!! See Cuba, see NK.

    Anybody think FDR would have sat down with Hitler prior to 9/1/39 if Hitler agreed to disarm and not invade Poland ? Silly, I know. But circumsatnces dictate actions, even distasteful actions with distasteful people.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  6. 92gator

    92gator GC Hall of Fame

    6,219
    827
    458
    Jun 14, 2007
    Well, at least you've come to terms with Trump winning a second term.

    LOL! :D
     
  7. mdgator05

    mdgator05 GC Hall of Fame

    7,700
    486
    378
    Dec 9, 2010
    Somebody did sit down and give concessions to Hitler prior to World War II. His name was Chamberlain. He is no longer viewed favorably for those actions.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. T3goalie

    T3goalie Premium Member

    3,570
    397
    298
    Apr 3, 2007
    Major Fail! Try again.

    Ignorance of history or misrepresenting history is no excuse... Don't know where you fit, but is clearly one or the other.

    Nobody is waiving a piece of paper "claiming peace in our time time."

    Nobody is turning their back on the Sudetenland....

    Trump claiming we are starting at ground zero and that this is the beginning of a process IS Not claiming, "peace in our time."
     
  9. mdgator05

    mdgator05 GC Hall of Fame

    7,700
    486
    378
    Dec 9, 2010
    Oh he most certainly is. You didn't see where he declared the nuclear threat over this morning? I'll help you out:

     
  10. T3goalie

    T3goalie Premium Member

    3,570
    397
    298
    Apr 3, 2007
    That just goes to prove, that I can't spell ignorant without an, "I." Damn I hate twitter. LOL. And he had been so measured right up to the point.....
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  11. PerSeGator

    PerSeGator GC Legend

    509
    92
    278
    Jun 14, 2014
    This is some serious weapons-grade nonsense. Chemical WMDs are not remotely comparable to nuclear weapons. No country in the nuclear club has ever been attacked by a major power, let alone invaded. It's the closest thing to a guarantee of sovereignty you're ever going to get as a non-western nation. A handful of nukes aren't going to destroy us, but we'll never chance a war with someone who has them, unless they use them first.

    What invites attack is developing nuclear weapons. But once it's done, there's no unringing the bell. That why countries take the chance. It puts them in a different category altogether. You might even get a US president groveling at your feet, begging you to please disarm instead of blowing up your country and cheering as your oppressed subjects hang you.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  12. OaktownGator

    OaktownGator Guardian of the GC Galaxy Moderator VIP Member

    25,898
    2,156
    2,023
    Apr 3, 2007
    Self defense is exactly why they want nukes.

    I don't know what you're thinking about, but it is a fact that we have NEVER attacked any country that has nukes and the ability to deliver them.

    OTOH, we have attacked a number of countries which presented no threat to us, and had no deterrent of their own. Which describes NK before their nuke and missile systems, and describes Iran right now. Iran is legitimately at risk of attack by us until they get nukes. And they know it. The PNAC group (Cheney, Rummy, Wolfie and company) has Iran on their short list of countries to invade along with Syria (Iraq was #1 of course). And you know Israel wants to see us go after them.

    Probably the thing that protects Iran the most right now is our overspending on other wars, along with our extended failures in Iraq. Today, the American people don't want to spend our money or American lives that way. But our memories are pretty short and we'll be easy to bamboozle again, when things have calmed down enough.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. OaktownGator

    OaktownGator Guardian of the GC Galaxy Moderator VIP Member

    25,898
    2,156
    2,023
    Apr 3, 2007
    As I've already pointed out, that is COMPLETELY contrary to our history.

    We have attacked several countries that posed no threat to us. We have NEVER attacked a country that had nukes. Any nukes at all.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  14. gatorjd95

    gatorjd95 All American

    468
    17
    198
    Mar 6, 2009
    I need some help about a few things. The reports and news articles I've read from an array of sources indicate that Trump did not agree to reduce/remove any sanctions against NK or give any other concessions to NK (including any forgiveness of debt, etc.). For all the posters claiming that Trump went groveling to NK and gave everything away, may you pls let us know what you are referring to?

    (BTW, I am not a fan of Trump the person/instigator. However, I am open to evaluating his policies and positions by putting aside how much I think he can act like an ignoramus.)
     
  15. 92gator

    92gator GC Hall of Fame

    6,219
    827
    458
    Jun 14, 2007
    &

    Haven't had cause to.

    Doesn't mean we won't, or wouldn't, if given cause.

    And it doesn't change the fact that we're up their asses just for seeking to develop nuclear programs, slapping sanctions, and doing what we can to prevent them from achieving nuclear capability.
     
  16. wgbgator

    wgbgator Very Stable Genius Premium Member

    Apr 19, 2007
    Geo-hell
    Most people think meeting directly with Kim was in of itself a concession of sorts, as the NKs have always wanted direct engagement with our leaders for legitimacy, all past presidents had refused. Agreeing to stop joint military exercises with SK was the other main one. And NK basically didn't agree on anything new other than repatriating POW/MIA remains. I mean, I don't think anyone gave up the farm, but I don't really think we needed to meet Kim F2F to get the return we got either if we wanted to engage in diplomacy. Ultimately its more of a nothingburger than anyone giving away the farm or peace in our time.
     
  17. gatorjd95

    gatorjd95 All American

    468
    17
    198
    Mar 6, 2009
    That was my assessment as well. I understood the hyperbole part on the Trump side (everything he does is HUGE), but couldn't see the basis for the hyperbole on the other side - and really still don't. Meeting Un F2F after Trump called him names and Un met with SK leaders - it just seemed like something in the ice had cracked just enough to consider changing our approach. Will it have any positive result? I have no idea.
     
  18. g8orbill

    g8orbill Old Gator VIP Member

    98,702
    12,492
    3,683
    Apr 3, 2007
    Clermont, Fl
    You libs need to take a powder until we see how this plays out
     
  19. VAg8r1

    VAg8r1 GC Hall of Fame

    7,762
    339
    348
    Apr 8, 2007
    And that's why NK acquired nukes in the first place and is very unlikely to give up its nuclear capability for years, if ever.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. dynogator

    dynogator GC Hall of Fame

    6,017
    182
    333
    Apr 9, 2007
    The North Koreans are putting it out there that lifting of sanctions is a done deal. Since a lot wasn't written down, and nothing was recorded who knows what was said, or promised.

    North Korean-controlled media on Wednesday reported that President Trump agreed to lift sanctions against the country during his historic summit with leader Kim Jong Un in Singapore, Reuters reported.

    Both leaders signed an agreement committing the United States to unspecified “security guarantees” in exchange for denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

    Trump reportedly offered to lift sanctions on the cash-strapped country in addition to those security guarantees, according to Reuters. Following the summit, Trump had indicated that sanctions would remainuntil North Korea began the denuclearization process, saying of easing sanctions, “I hope it’s going to be soon. At a certain point, I actually look forward to taking them off.”