Replies

Perhaps, but there is the reality that Americans will have to come to grips with: when you deal with a quasi totalitarian country that doesn’t care about its citizens, then you are limited. Yes, they MAY have a stronger interest there, but what’s in it for them may be far, far less than what’s in it for us.

We might, for example, be able to crush Mexico like an insect for something they did, but for the Chinese to come to Baja and do it in our back yard would be much harder. Likewise, when you run on “no foreign wars,” yet the likelihood that this NORK nut wants a war means you might have to violate that, then you have to decide which is more important, a relatively better/worse trade deal or another foreign involvement.

George Washington and John Adams paid tribute to the Barbary Pirates because we didn’t have a big enough navy to challenge them and even when we did, we just had other priorities. For the time being, it was worth the price.

The price however always changes, and if the NORKs are put away, China knows that they cannot go back to the way they were.

But it’s easy to say “We want to crush the NORKS, yet have no boots on the ground, yet also get everything we wanted from China.” Won’t happen.

Won’t happen.

Agreed. We're not going to get help from China to put their little terror back in the box without paying them to do it. They're still getting a lot of use out of that nut case and won't give him up for free. But the President's mistake here was conflating the two "deals." One could have been put off for awhile. If we don't get the North Korean problem solved right away, well it's going to be getting bigger faster and it's going to be affecting China (and S.Korea and Japan) long before it becomes our problem. Right now it is only our problem because we have promised to protect South Korea and Japan - if we have to make this one big deal, lets bring them both into it too and let them help pick up the tab.

Likewise, when you run on “no foreign wars,” yet the likelihood that this NORK nut wants a war means you might have to violate that, then you have to decide which is more important, a relatively better/worse trade deal or another foreign involvement

You call bombing a country and overthrowing regime (which was also a campaign promise NOT to do) NOT being in a foreign war?

IF you do then you and I have totally different meanings of what war or a fight is. If you throw a punch at me, we are fighting. If the US bombs a foreign country that is foreign involvement. Another campaign promise BROKEN....period.

You can sugar coat a turd but it is still a turd.

I am not saying it did not need to be done but damn, do not try to walk it back like some liberal. I am not saying that that little crazy loon in NK needs to be eliminated from this Earth, but President Trump needs to be honest with the folks that put him there. He needs to say, "Hey, gotta do it again and break my promise. I know I promised you this and that but I will make it up to you. This NK loon gotta go".