North Korea leader tells military to be ready to use nuclear weapons at any time

[fan_since79]

I don't think Trump is going to negotiate "under the gun" so to speak. If anything, I expect him to ramp up his rhetoric as we get closer to a tipping point.

Dangerous times.

 

[Tank]

2 hours ago, fan_since79 said:

I don't think Trump is going to negotiate "under the gun" so to speak. If anything, I expect him to ramp up his rhetoric as we get closer to a tipping point.

This seems a lot more likely given the lack of diplomacy in the WH these days.

[gotbeer]

Looks like north Korea is getting an icbm ready for launch. Let's see where this splashes down

[Glen]

Good thing we didn't elect that warmongering Hillary. I would hate to have somebody with diplomatic and political experience running the show right now.

[red321]

25 minutes ago, Glen said:

Good thing we didn't elect that warmongering Hillary. I would hate to have somebody with diplomatic and political experience running the show right now.

But her emails....

[Blarg]

41 minutes ago, Glen said:

Good thing we didn't elect that warmongering Hillary. I would hate to have somebody with diplomatic and political experience running the show right now.

Yeah because of all those peace treaties she signed as SOS. 

[Glen]

So you'd rather have Trump dealing with this than Hillary? Honest answer.

[fan_since79]

1 hour ago, Glen said:

Good thing we didn't elect that warmongering Hillary. I would hate to have somebody with diplomatic and political experience running the show right now.

She was a great Secretary of State.

 

[mtangelsfan]

16 minutes ago, Glen said:

So you'd rather have Trump dealing with this than Hillary? Honest answer.

Can't really say.  The strategy that has been used, including her tenure as SOS, has gotten us here.

[UndertheHalo]

Hillary Clintons tenure as secretary as state has absolutely nothing to do with the current situation with North Korea. 

The policy has been basically unchanged for 60 years. 

[Glen]

You nutless gutsacks can't even answer the question. 

Who'd you rather have as president handling the NK situation right now, Hillary or Trump? "Neither" isn't an answer, nor is "I don't know." Pick one, and explain why, if you can.

[Blarg]

19 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

Hillary Clintons tenure as secretary as state has absolutely nothing to do with the current situation with North Korea. 

The policy has been basically unchanged for 60 years. 

Then why are you guys blaming Trump? 

[UndertheHalo]

Just now, Blarg said:

Then why are you guys blaming Trump? 

Uhhh.  I have not. 

[Blarg]

11 minutes ago, Glen said:

You nutless gutsacks can't even answer the question. 

Who'd you rather have as president handling the NK situation right now, Hillary or Trump? "Neither" isn't an answer, nor is "I don't know." Pick one, and explain why, if you can.

I think I've made it abundantly clear I do not want Hillary Clinton in the highest office of American politics. I think you are just too dense and keep asking the same question over and over thinking the answer changes. 

[Tank]

27 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

Hillary Clintons tenure as secretary as state has absolutely nothing to do with the current situation with North Korea. 

The policy has been basically unchanged for 60 years. 

Did it improve any under her tenure? Were tensions reduced through her diplomatic efforts?

its a fair question to ask.

Edited September 4, 2017 by Tank

[UndertheHalo]

2 minutes ago, Tank said:

Did it improve any under her tenure? Were tensions reduced through her diplomatic efforts?

its a fair question to ask.

Nothing changed.  If you're suggesting that Clinton herself had a negative impact on the status quo on the Korean Peninsula.  I'm sorry that is laughable. 

[Jason]

34 minutes ago, Glen said:

You nutless gutsacks can't even answer the question. 

Who'd you rather have as president handling the NK situation right now, Hillary or Trump? "Neither" isn't an answer, nor is "I don't know." Pick one, and explain why, if you can.

Any large scale conflicts like this should be done with the approval of congress. This should not be a unilateral decision. I'd be OK with us taking a supportive role behind Japan and SK.

[Glen]

30 minutes ago, Blarg said:

I think I've made it abundantly clear I do not want Hillary Clinton in the highest office of American politics. I think you are just too dense and keep asking the same question over and over thinking the answer changes. 

So are you saying you'd rather have Trump handling this? Getting a direct answer out of you is like pulling teeth.

[mtangelsfan]

1 hour ago, UndertheHalo said:

Hillary Clintons tenure as secretary as state has absolutely nothing to do with the current situation with North Korea. 

The policy has been basically unchanged for 60 years. 

It has as much to do with it as any other tenure.  

[mtangelsfan]

1 hour ago, Glen said:

You nutless gutsacks can't even answer the question. 

Who'd you rather have as president handling the NK situation right now, Hillary or Trump? "Neither" isn't an answer, nor is "I don't know." Pick one, and explain why, if you can.

Good grief, you have become one of least subtle posters on here.

[Brandon]

nice Hilary hijack

[fan_since79]

Trump agrees to lift limits on the size of South Korean missile payloads and there is talk of selling "many billions" of dollars of military equipment to them.

Buy Raytheon and Lockheed stock.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/349137-us-south-korea-agree-to-end-missile-payload-limits

[Glen]

And the rich get richer.

[fan_since79]

19 minutes ago, Glen said:

And the rich get richer.

Well, many middle class stockholders benefit too. California economy also benefits from increased defense business. Corporate taxes, jobs, etc.

 

 

[Amazing Larry]