How come Kim hasn't launched yet? It's because he knows he will lose his country if he does. We really have no idea how China,Russia or any other country with nuclear weapons will react. Iran will most likely have a weapon soon because of President Obama's deal with them.
It's funny how you say the Clinton days are over, but probably voted for Hillary. She was complicate concerning Bill's sinful lifestyle he most likely has lived his entire life. The truth is you on the left don't care about morals as much as you care about political power. Be honest with me. Did you call for Al Frankin to resign or be replaced early on in the process or was it when you figured out he was a liability?
Here are my responses to your post, point by point. Sorry for the delay in my answer. My son-in-law got a new job in Seattle, and I went to their new home to see my daughter and 2 grandchildren as well as helping them to haul their furniture. OK, here are my responses to your statements, point by point.
1) Your statement: How come Kim hasn't launched yet? It's because he knows he will lose his country if he does. We really have no idea how China, Russia or any other country with nuclear weapons will react.
Reply- OK, instead of asking me, ask Kim directly!
Seriously, perhaps Kim is more patient and realistic than his bravado might indicate? Perhaps, our president is more infantile than Kim? To me, both look and act like a couple of spoiled children. Why else is he bragging that his nuclear button is bigger than Kim's? Does he know that Kim is also aware of it? Was bragging really necessary? Don’t you think it is childish? (my apologies to the children, since I think the children are more mature than our president and Kim in such matter.) If he launches a missile, do you think he will be the sole loser? We don't know how China, Russia, and other countries will react, but it is not too difficult to guess.
Historical perspective: When North Korea invaded South Korea in 1950, the US reacted instantly. I am sure just about everybody thought that the war would be over in a matter of a few months. Many believed that Korea would be finally reunited with the help of the US. It did not happen. China sent an army to support NK. Russia provided weapons and fighter jets to North Korea. The war lasted something like 3 more years, finally settled pretty much along the original border.
The end result was an armistice, meaning that theoretically, the war is still going on. Both the South and the North are spending an enormous amount of manpower and money to support this non-war, which may become a real war, dragging the rest of the world for this senseless division.
To add to the above statement, the US still has a substantial military presence there as well as other parts of Asia.
2) Iran will most likely have a weapon soon because of President Obama's deal with them.
Reply:
Your blaming Obama is so ignorant, to say politely, or just a typical partisan stereotyping, or both.
To get to the root of Iran's nuclear thing, you have to go back several presidents, including Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, another Bush, and Obama. That includes 5 Democrats and 6 Republicans. If you ask me, it can't be any more bi-partisan than this!
If, indeed, it was Obama's fault, as you insist, what have the 10 presidents prior to Obama, which includes 6 Republicans, done to solve the problem? Did you voice your opinion, condemning Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, and Bush-II for not resolving the Iran problem? I bet my farm that you did not. I would think you most likely blamed Kennedy, if you are old enough, otherwise, you would've blamed Carter and Clinton as well, instead of just Obama.
As for the money returned to Iran, it belongs to Iran, and the US seized it in the early 90s. So, when the "agreement" has been finalized, it was a right thing for the US to do. If not, the US would be stealing their money. Are you advocating for the US to be a highway robber?
3) It's funny how you say the Clinton days are over, but you probably voted for Hillary. She was complicate concerning Bill's sinful lifestyle he most likely has lived his entire life.
Reply:
First of all, I did not vote for Hilary Clinton. I did not vote for Donal Trump either. I will let you guess whom I voted for.
And yeah, Trump is a paragon of virtue! Hallelujah!
4) The truth is you on the left don't care about morals as much as you care about political power.
Reply: If that were the case, how come we hear all these sleazy things the rightwing politicians do, and get support from the holier-than-thou people like Reverend Van? Do you consider Pres. Trump a paragon of virtue? Judge Moore?
Equating political persuasion as the measure of morality is as stupid as it gets.
5) Be honest with me. Did you call for Al Franken to resign or be replaced early on in the process or was it when you figured out he was a liability?
Reply: As for Franken, I believed the story when it came out. After all, he was in the entertainment business, where that kind of activities is quite common. He was not a supreme court justice or such, whose moral values are highly expected. Yet, I hoped Franken would apologize in public el pronto, and he did. As for resignation, I was a sort of surprised, based on what Moore was going through, but understood it. In the end, what he did was the right thing to do. After all, your hero, Moore, did far worse things than what Franken did, yet stayed to the end, and still complaining with supports from other holier-than-thou’s. I can’t help but feel that you were/are one of them. SAD!!!
