How is he wrong?
The US has gone from condemning NK missile launches to not only ignoring them, but justifying them. That is wrong.
2 Likes
Do countries not often posture before negotiations?
Is the end goal to show outrage or get a change?
So you think NK is justified in continuing missile launches.
âJustifiedâ? How do you determine such a thing and does it matter? They have missiles, they can shoot them whenever they want. Who do they need to âjustifyâ it to?
What a strange question.
What has decades of âcondemnationâ achieved?
The doctors said they could not believe that the President would get all cuddly with the murderous dictator who oversaw the torture and ultimate death of an American.
No, they didnât. They said âno evidence of tortureâ.
So, geopolitical genius, what should POTUS have done since taking office that would have made the world safer from NK beligerance than it is now?
Justified. The definition is widely available. Is it now OK for NK to shoot missiles without condemnation or consequence?
Justified to whom, Sotto?
I know what the word means.
Do I think itâs âokâ? I wish they wouldnât. They donât care what I wish.
âCondemnationâ? You think youâre going to shame them into changing?
What consequence? Shunning? See above.
So in that case, every sovereign nation can simply do what they want. We have no authority to ask them to justify their actions. Why even bother with NK or Iran? We should stay out of their business.
What do you think the word âsovereignâ means Sotto?
Where would such an authority come from? We can ask. And they can tell us to â â â â off.
Why indeed? Perhaps we should.
We could sleep at night and look ourselves in the mirror in the belief we held the moral high ground.
You (collective) donât. The moral high ground is a good place to put your artillery.
So you believe every country has the right to do whatever they want. Launch missiles, build nuclear weapons, kill their own people. We have no authority to say or do anything.
Again Sotto; what does the word mean?
From whence such authority?
They donât have a right to launch missiles onto our soil and kill our citizens.
They donât have a ârightâ to kill their own citizens⌠wait, Obama did it. Maybe they do. But thatâs not the right question. The right question is do we have the ârightâ to stop them and if so, where does it come from?
So now youâre going to default to a philosophical argument as to the rights of a sovereign nation.
Until the point at which a foreign nation directly attacks another, there is no recourse for their actions. Got it.
What does that mean? The argument is philosophical; what else could it be?
Of course there is recourse; we could use nuclear weapons to kill 10 million of them. We could invade and change the regime. We could embargo them into starvation. We could condemn them with extraordinary righteous indignation and poutrage. We could piss and moan about it ad infinitum. We could sit down at a table and try to convince them. Should I go on?
Is that what weâre discussing?
So again, is NK justified in their actions? Should NK be able to launch missiles without recourse by the United States or others simply because they are a sovereign nation?
So again, who is the judge?
Where does the right to recourse come from?
