The entire Senate is going to the White House for a briefing?

It seems as though he is criticizing Trump over this stunt, which is what it is.

 

Why is it inappropriate for the president to invite senators to the white house?
Again, unless they are dragging senators in against their will I cannot see why it would be inappropriate.

 

It all began a couple weeks ago, soon after President Xi Jinping chatted with Trump. Soon after that meeting Trump declared, "I have great confidence that China will properly deal with North Korea. If they are unable to do so, the U.S., with its allies, will!"

Soon after that, Trump threatened the madman from Pyongyang with an "armada." "We are sending an armada. Very powerful," Mr Trump told Fox Business Network. "We have submarines. Very powerful. Far more powerful than the aircraft carrier. That I can tell you.”

Trump's NSA, H.R. McMaster, chimed in. "The President has made clear that he will not accept the United States and its allies and partners in the region being under threat from this hostile regime with nuclear weapons."

As did Vice-President Pence with a particularly belligerent remark. "We will defeat any attack, and meet any use of conventional or nuclear weapons with an overwhelming and effective American response."

Despite the fact that North Korea hasn't attacked anyone. She hasn't even tested a missile since the failure a little over a week ago. Nevertheless, it seems that Republican Senate Majority Mitch McConnell had become concerned about something -- no one is sure what since it can't be anything North Korea has done -- and he requested a briefing.

Ever the gracious host, Trump invited the Senate to the White House. So, the Republican Senate, led by their fearless leader, Republican Senator McConnell, trudged over to the White House. Put a different way, 100 Senators, who have a perfect meeting place of their own -- it is called Capitol Hill -- made their way to the White House instead of four senior advisors going to Capitol Hill to give McConnell his briefing.

Republican Senator Ted Cruz gave a brief summary of the briefing. He called it called it "a long and detailed briefing."

He then added, "The military is obviously planning for a number of options, as they should -- minimal military action to more significant action," Cruz said. "It's of course the hope of the administration and Congress that military action isn't necessary. If there's a clear and imminent threat to the U.S., our military needs to be prepared to act and I believe they are prepared to act to keep our country safe."

"Minimal military action to more significant action," that is double talk. "Minimal military action" against North Korea is like trying to poke the eye out of a rattlesnake. It is infinitely smarter not to do it.

Someone tell me how this was little more than a dog and pony show. Someone tell me how this is little more than a diversion from the multiple failures of the Trump administration and the Russian influence.

Someone tell me how this is little more than a self-fulfilling prophecy. The Trump administration wants a "small war" as a distraction from failures at home, so they are manufacturing the need for one.

Someone tell me how it is that the Senate, that powerfully proud body, could humiliate itself by loading up on buses and riding over to the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on the White House grounds. It was embarrassing to watch. I don't know how this could happen.

Someone tell me, if a shooting war breaks out with North Korea, why was it necessary. Because in three to four years North Korea will attack the U.S.? That is completely ludicrous.

This is all a distraction and the entire Republican Party is falling for it.

 

You are ignorant of my posts that are critical of Trump. You then base your statements on ignorance.

 

All very true, but if a shooting war breaks out between the U.S. and North Korea, it isn't because of anything Kim did, unless you count kidnapping another American.

 

That is very true. Kim is far more dangerous than ISIS. His army has not been ravaged by a decade of war. He has huge artillery pieces that can reach deep into South Korea. He has missiles that can reach Japan. He has modern tanks. He has an effective air force.

And he has nukes.

Senator Cruz made a totally brainless remark concerning minimal military action vs. more significant action. "Minimal military action" could be akin to poking a hornet's nest with a harmless stick.

Definitely true, Kim is not ISIS.

 

I agree and have argued that we should have done something about N. Korea's quest for nukes a long time ago as this is a significant threat to security of the homeland rather. Instead of this we focused on places like Yugoslavia, Libya, Iraq, Yemen that are not a significant threat to the homeland.

That said, if you had to choose between Kim having his finger on the nuke button or some ISIS jihadist intent on martyring himself. Who do you choose ?

 

Agree on all but the "modern tanks" and "effective air force".

1991 Iraq had better tanks and an air force than North Korea has. See how well they did against the U.S.

 

How do you know that?

 

You seem to think that length will make up for avoiding the actual question. Senators aren't dukes and princes that can't get into a bus for a ten minute ride to a different building. There's nothing inappropriate about them being briefed in the White House.

The rest of your post is just irrelevant addendum to the argument. There's nothing good about letting North Korea stay the way it is, and I think you would call any foreign policy action taken by this administration a distraction gambit regardless of whether it was beneficial or not.

 

I consider a person who's actions appear to be those of a paranoid schizophrenic, who is belligerent and threatening, and who is is armed with nuclear weapons and ICBMs as being an imminent threat- a clear and present danger. Those things are indeed Kim's actions, they are of his own making and clearly- that is his fault. The fact he hasn't actually pulled the big trigger is virtually irrelevant. Being armed is one thing. Promising to incinerate anyone who offends you is something else. Police shoot armed people threatening death to others frequently, and most agree that is both necessary and wise.

Pacifism in the face of such a threat has never been a wise choice in the long run- either the trouble maker is encouraged by your tolerance of his belligerence and just remains in your face as a constant danger, or it escalates and forces us into belated action- after the fact.... then, we look back and realized we failed to act at the right time and paid the price because we lacked backbone. History repeats itself- when you don't learn the first time, you get to take the class over again until you do.

 

Yeah, you go, terrorist USA. Drop 32k tons of napalm on NK and then wilt like an entitled snowflake because they consider the US their mortal enemy, an enemy which does and will attack pre-emptively.

 

Are you referring to the Korean War?

You do know that the North Koreans did start that war don't you?

 

I don't understand the question. What happens to my choice? Adding to my confusion about your question, I have already stated that North Korea is far more dangerous.

If you are asking me, which threat should be preemptively eliminated, the premise of your question has a false basis. You are assuming one or the other should be eliminated prior to their assault on our country.

Attacking another force based on the assumption it will attack us sometime in the distant future is violation of the spirit and intent of our Constitution. Such an attack violates our laws, treaties to which we are signatory, and international law.

To answer your question as best as I can, I choose neither.

BTW, the U.S. has a nasty history with preemptive wars. Another Republican President considered that Iraq endangered our national security. Iraq had done nothing to earn our wrath, but this President decided to teach Iraq a lesson much like our current Republican President wishes to teach North Korea a lesson. Because of the damage we did to Iraq's stability, fourteen years later and after 5,000 dead, 25,000 wounded, and $6 trillion we are still fighting in Iraq.

We should bear in mind, Bush attacked Iraq after her forces were ravaged by an eight-year war with Iran during the '80's, after she suffered a military defeat in the First Gulf War, and after eight years of her weapons being dismantled by weapons inspectors during the '90's. After Bush, Jr., attacked Iraq, Saddam's air force was too crippled to fly.

The North Korean armed forces have no such problems. As of 2016, with 5,889,000 paramilitary personnel, it is the largest paramilitary organization on Earth. This number represents 25% of the population. It's air force consists of 940 war planes, including 40 sophisticated MiG-29's that rival the F-15 and F-16 fighters. The Korean People's Strategic Rocket Forces is a major division of the KPA that controls the DPRK's nuclear and conventional strategic missiles. It is mainly equipped with surface-to-surface missiles of Soviet and Chinese design, as well as locally developed long-range missiles.

Put another way, unlike pathetic Syria and Afghanistan who could strike back after Trump's bold attacks, it is not likely the DPRK will simply acquiesce to a cruise missile strike or the dropping of a MOAB. She will strike back, and 20 million South Koreans and 28,500 American troops are easily within range of her artillery and rockets.

 

Well, then, quit *****-footing around. We should we do about that? Be specific. You seem to be a very brave person with other people's lives, particularly the 20 million South Koreans living under DPRK guns, so, tell us, oh brave one, whatever should we do?

BTW, your comparison to the actions of police officers was hilarious.

 

Sure, from your viewpoint and Trump's, there is absolutely nothing wrong with 100 Senators going to Trump's House instead four key advisors going to Capitol Hill. After all, like you implied, those Senators "aren't dukes and princes" and they needed to be put in their place. It worked out great for Trump.

This is all just a distraction from Trump's many failures as his first 100 days come to a close. You heard it from me first. All Trump is doing is making a lot of noise. He is a showman, after all. Beyond some meaningless sanctions, Trump isn't going to do a thing. You see, unlike pathetic Syria and Afghanistan, North Korea will strike back, and hard. Trump simply isn't that stupid to incur that kind of wrath, and Mattis and Tillerson will make sure he isn't that stupid.

The damn fool will continue to talk about how China, North Korea's decades long ally, will help the U.S., China's decades long enemy going all the way back to the Korean War.

Trump doesn't seem to know which side nations are on. Russia and China are our friends. Russia will help us with ISIS. China will help us with the DPRK. NATO is obsolete. Oh, that's right, he changed his mind about NATO. He took back all he said about NATO during the campaign.

Of course, he took back everything he said during the campaign. (See the thread entitled, "Why did people vote for Trump?" for clarification of that statement.)

 

Because Kim is not about to attack the U.S. or U.S. interests.

If he does, all bets are off, and, of course, the President should act.

Kim knows that if he attacks, that will be the end of Pyongyang. He is not suicidal, and, if he were, the Korean People's Army isn't. His generals won't commit suicide. They have too much at stake.

 

North Korea has 1,000 T-62 main battle tank. That is formidable tank.

She has 40 MiG-29's. The MiG-29 is an equal rival to the F-15.

 

The T-62 is a joke compared to those used by the U.S. and ROK. And 40 Mig 29s would be facing something like 1,000 F-15s and F-16s from the U.S., ROK, and Japan so I would not worry.

 

That statement should read, "Put another way, unlike pathetic Syria and Afghanistan who could not strike back after Trump's bold attacks,"

 

One of the topics of the post you commented on was about who was more dangerous with finger on nuke.
One of the things that came up was whether an Atheist narcissist dictator like Kim was more likely to start nuclear war or a religious zealot ... such as an ISIS radical. The topic of religious zealotry in the US also came up... that one of these zealots -should they get into power could be dangerous as well.

You are speaking in reference to "danger to the US". Obviously Kim is more dangerous than ISIS in this respect.

 

Well- I guess the right thing to do would be to have all the people who would rather be the victim rather than stand up- line u. Then, Kim could drop his pants and they could all kiss and worship to avoid confrontation.

If you don't understand the right and need to defend yourself against being shot begins at the threat rather than the fact you have been shot, you need to consult with the police and ask why they don't wait to be shot down before they act.

Surely- you can't be that much of a weenie. The treatment you get from those who use fear and violence in the world will be directly proportional with what you will tolerate. You back down, they move in to push further.

 

So, in other words, you are talking about a full-fledged war to destroy the armed forces of the DPRK, and you could care less about the losses in South Korea, possibly even Japan.

I didn't think people like you existed anymore in the Western world. I guess I was wrong about that. You are a Neanderthal.

And just plain nuts.

Answer me this, Oh Brave One With Other People's Lives, if the U.S. couldn't defeat the pathetic forces of Iraq and Afghanistan in fifteen years, how are we going to defeat North Korea with it's six million-man army, an effective air force, and its strategic rocket forces?

 

Well, the "religious zealot" would first have to get his hands on a nuke. That could prove problematic. Kim already has the nuke. Yeah, of course, Kim is far more dangerous. That is my point. It is insane to provoke him. Trumpsters keep ignoring this fact. Kim is doing the same thing N.K. has done for decades. Nothing has changed except Trump's dangerous rhetoric.

BTW, my statement should read, "Put another way, unlike pathetic Syria and Afghanistan who could not strike back after Trump's bold attacks"

Darn I didn't catch that in time.

 

I have specified an acceptable level of U.S. and allied losses (100,000).

The U.S. defeated the forces of Iraq and Afghanistan in a matter of days. What took years was the occupation and "nation building".

I assume the U.S. wouldn't bother occupying and rebuilding North Korea. The South Koreans have both the raw numbers and the desire to occupy and rebuild North Korea with simple financial assistance from the rest of the world.

If the North Koreans used any nuclear weapon the U.S. could fully justify destroying all the North Korean nuclear sites with W76 100 kiloton warheads launched from Ohio class SSBNs and with destroying the North Korean artillery sites with several (10-12) dialed down 20-50 kiloton range warheads probably delivered by B-2A Spirits.

Absent nuclear weapons being used, the U.S. ROK, and Japan can muster at least 1,000 tactical warplanes for ground attack along the DMZ.

1,000 aircraft each carrying an average bombload of 8,000 lbs. That amounts to the equivalent of 4 kilotons of explosive precisely targeted on North Korean artillery that could be brought to bare. That would wipe out a vast amount of the North Korean artillery in a single sortie airstrike alone.

In regards to the North Korean allegedly "huge militia". They can't feed and support a force even a fraction of that size in any kind of major war so it's a non issue.