To: Fennie
Haley messed up, big time. Her phrasing of the conditions under which the U.S. would attack NK left a lot of room for interpretation on the part of NK leadership. Some of you will remember that that is exactly why the FIRST Korean War started, and probably contributed to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. For example, why would she specify a NK attack on a military base as opposed to an attack on a Republic of Korea or Japanese city? Words have meaning.
3 posted on
04/25/2017 5:09:21 AM PDT by
Pecos
(Actual justice must be defended against the newspeak of social justice crybullies.)
To: Pecos
It might be that the US wants to attack.
8 posted on
04/25/2017 5:13:07 AM PDT by
Mr. Douglas
(Best. Election. EVER!)
To: Pecos
The US also warned Crazy Kim's trigger-happy regime against testing any other missiles, any nuclear weapons - or taking any other provocative action. I think that would be covered under 'any other provocative action.'
27 posted on
04/25/2017 6:11:24 AM PDT by
Licensed-To-Carry
(Every time you vote for a democrat, you put another nail in the coffin of the USA.....)
To: Pecos
For example, why would she specify a NK attack on a military base as opposed to an attack on a Republic of Korea or Japanese city? Words have meaning.That is already covered under treaty obligations and North Korea is fully aware of this. The five conditions are simply additional red lines and not the only red lines.
35 posted on
04/25/2017 8:43:35 AM PDT by
cpdiii
(Deckhand, Roughneck, Mud Man, Geologist, Pilot, Pharmacist. CONSTITUTUTION IS WORTH DYING FOR!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson