Dante on January 24, 2013 at 5:40 PM

You are far too sensitive. I take your side on war with nations that do not threaten the security of the US. Explain the Orwellian context of my comments, please. You don’t need to challenge everybody, do you?

We’re at war with North Korea. We have, currently, a cease-fire with them. No armistice, no peace treaty. The have, over the years violated that cease-fire repeatedly and nastily. Now, they are developing nuclear weapons and long-range rockets. In case you missed this, they just said it is aimed at us.

You are an idiot and a eunuch. An intellectual and moral eunuch.

I don’t mean that in a polite way.

trigon on January 24, 2013 at 1:00 PM

Hey, genius. The fact stands: We went to war against a country that didn’t attack the U.S., and you advocate using force against a country and people that have not used force against you or the U.S.

Actually…no. Korea was a UN police action led by US forces. No constitutional war was declared. MacArthur wanted to turn it into a winnable war but was fired for suggesting such a thing. For 60 years, the US has stationed a minimum of ~50,000 troops there as kind of a swat team backup for the South Koreans. But the real reason was/is to have forward troop presence during the Cold War and now, to contain China. Meanwhile, a growing consensus in South Korea is for reunification, a movement which is constantly stifled by the US.

genso on January 24, 2013 at 1:49 PM

Oh, please. That’s Orwellian word games. It was war. You are correct that it was unconstitutional.

Well, thanks to the norks, the missile defense industry has an extension of job security – unless obumble decides to surrender to NK sometime soon.

dentarthurdent on January 24, 2013 at 1:27 PM

Would that really surprise you….or anybody for that matter?

We’re at war with North Korea.

Actually…no. Korea was a UN police action led by US forces. No constitutional war was declared. MacArthur wanted to turn it into a winnable war but was fired for suggesting such a thing. For 60 years, the US has stationed a minimum of ~50,000 troops there as kind of a swat team backup for the South Koreans. But the real reason was/is to have forward troop presence during the Cold War and now, to contain China. Meanwhile, a growing consensus in South Korea is for reunification, a movement which is constantly stifled by the US.

You’re the cowboy who wants to use force against those who haven’t used force against us. Do it yourself, Mr. Macho.

Dante on January 24, 2013 at 12:13 PM

We’re at war with North Korea. We have, currently, a cease-fire with them. No armistice, no peace treaty. The have, over the years violated that cease-fire repeatedly and nastily. Now, they are developing nuclear weapons and long-range rockets. In case you missed this, they just said it is aimed at us.

You are an idiot and a eunuch. An intellectual and moral eunuch.

I don’t mean that in a polite way.

We could nuke it from orbit. Just to be sure.

I’d like to propose Dante rides the first one in ala Slim Pickens in Dr. Strangelove. No cowboy hat, though. Too macho. I think he should wear a beanie. The little propeller would be cool and stuff.

trigon on January 24, 2013 at 11:06 AM

You’re the cowboy who wants to use force against those who haven’t used force against us. Do it yourself, Mr. Macho.

I’d like to propose Dante rides the first one in ala Slim Pickens in Dr. Strangelove. No cowboy hat, though. Too macho. I think he should wear a beanie. The little propeller would be cool and stuff.

There’s a reason why China wants Pyongyang to pipe down — their influence on the DPRK is one of the main reasons why the US engages China on Pacific Rim security.

I thought the US engaged China to fund Clinton/Gore’s 1996 campaign. But, come on, Ed, NK is a talking point/hammer for both the US and China in Asia. For China, which would rather see reunification on the Korean Peninsula, it is a barrier to keep 50,000 US troops (their main objection to reunification) off its border. For the US, it is a convenient bogeyman to keep 100,000 US troops in SK and Japan while trying to maintain the illusion that they are not there to contain China. Do you really lose sleep at night because of the threats from NK?

And this is a supposedly conservative website.

Dante on January 24, 2013 at 8:19 AM

You certainly are the test about whether or not liberals are less tolerant than conservatives. On the whole, I’d say that a worthless soldier-hating rube like you has been treated far better than you deserve.

Yeah, yeah, I know. But let a guy dream.

Who needs allies right Dante. You are pathetic.

D-fusit on January 24, 2013 at 9:47 AM

Dante is in his own little world and thinks the US should be as well.
It’s tough getting away from the manuals.

Dante:

That sounds like the same logic,as the Abortions stance by
the Democrat Party of Death!!

canopfor on January 24, 2013 at 9:36 AM

I’m sure to you it does.

South Korea, in case you weren’t aware, is not part of the United States. That NK may be or is a threat to SK does not make them a threat to the United States.

North Korea is not a threat to the United States, and answering, “But South Koreans would be killed” in no way addresses the statement, nor does your false analogy regarding abortion.

That was a fantastic refutation of how NK is not a threat to the United States:

“Because S. Koreans would be killed!”

Dante on January 24, 2013 at 8:46 AM

Dante:

That sounds like the same logic,as the Abortions stance by
the Democrat Party of Death!!

Why you busting my balls Hans?

Flange on January 24, 2013 at 9:22 AM

Flange:Lol,yup:)

Dante on January 24, 2013 at 8:19 AM
And yet here you are.

For what purpose?

CurtZHP on January 24, 2013 at 9:13 AM

…go up thread…”we are more tolerant than others”…no one else would put up with that POS…he has no place else to go!

canopfor on January 24, 2013 at 8:58 AM

Why you busting my balls Hans?

And this is a supposedly conservative website.

Dante on January 24, 2013 at 8:19 AM

And yet here you are.

For what purpose?