patrick.net

That's a pretty huge conspiracy theory there freespeech, to think he would move to bomb NKorea for a distraction.

If he bombs NKorea we are in real deep trouble. It will probably lead to some major unraveling in Asia that may have a bigger world impact.

Or Trump might talk though for a year and then change course after a minor concession. He traded his tough trade rhetoric for Chinese help on Korea though, so he might be serious.

It worked for Bill.

http://thehilltalk.com/2016/08/29/bill-clinton-iraq-bombing-monica-lewinsky/

ParkingMemory says

I don't think we have the stomach for that right now. Our Dear Leader may tweet his way into it, or they may force it, but I sure as hell don't seek it out. I think it is one hell of a gamble, especially with Trump at the helm.

Not doing anything to stop their nuclear advancements is the most dangerous option.
Your logic is what led to Hitler not being stopped in time.

Dan8267 says

I will simply summarize that morality can be mathematically model in exquisite detail and thus a moral artificial intelligent could certainly be created. The basis of the model would be game theory and evolutionary psychology.

PeopleUnited says

Seriously though, Dan boasted in another thread that he can create a moral artificial intelligence. We sure could use it now Dan. Let's see it.

1. It was a statement of fact, not a boast. This is your first lie.
2. The statement, shown above, does not even mention me. This is your second lie.
3. The statement is that a moral artificial intelligence could be created.
4. Yes, I or a number of other people could create such an A.I. Most likely we would do it as a team, not as a sole individual because software takes time to develop.
5. Since software, especially great advancements, take time to develop you can't have it right now since no one has started working on it. Rome wasn't built in a day. If you want a great advancement today, then you should have started development on it years ago.
6. I would never create a weapons system for the military. I have strong moral and ethical objections to doing so. If Christianity actually promoted morality, so would you.
7. A moral A.I. is the last thing the army would want. By definition, such an A.I. would have to disobey unethical orders, and those kinds of orders happen very frequently in the military. Yes, including our military. A moral A.I. would not have dropped napalm or Agent Orange on the jungles in Vietnam, horribly killing humans, various apes including endangered Gibbons, and many other animals. The very last thing the military wants is a soldier who thinks for himself and has a higher standard of ethics than the brass have.
8. Aren't there better things we could do with advance A.I.s than kill each other? You have such a limited imagination.

Ironman says

Strategist says

Obama was the worst man for the job. He did nothing but watch them for 8 full years developing nukes.

Wait, Obama did do something. He wrote a stern letter telling them to stop. That's enough, isn't it???

That's what Obama thought. And that's why he is going down in history as a President who not just screwed up, but fucked up too.

anonymous says

Seeing on how we did such a spectacular job in the middle east with our last GOP clown circus in charge what's not to like ?

So we should just draw another red line like Obama kept doing?

anonymous says

If Kim can take out his step brother at the Kuala Lumpur airport, someone somewhere has the skill and ability to take him out as well without killing millions but

There was no one guarding the step brother at that airport. 2 million men are guarding the "crazy fat kid"
I'm sure they would love to execute that fat brat.

Ironman says

Why don't you ever point the finger at the Magic Mulatto who was in there the last 8 years? Did the middle east get better or worse under his leadership?

As far as American soldiers dying in the ME, money wasted, Americans killing other people in the ME, legacy effects, and jihadis killing America in America, things were worse under HW Bush, better under Clinton, worse under W Bush, better under Obama1. We'll have to wait and see how Mr. MOAB pajama pants does.

1. Comparing these five factors between HW Bush and Obama is highly subjective. Maybe call that a wash.

Ironman says

Wait, Obama did do something. He wrote a stern letter telling them to stop. That's enough, isn't it???

From your linked video: "SCUDs broke apart as they headed toward the ground, and more often than not, the Patriot hit pieces of the missile, but left the warhead to freefall and explode." IOW, the warhead hit where it would have even if the Patriot missiles had not been fired; the effect of the Patriot missile was merely to add to the amount of shrapnel raining down on residential streets and homes. Subsequent investigations found few or even zero instances in which a Patriot missile actually stopped a SCUD during the first Gulf War.

No, it's the most likely explanation. It's tough to prove zero, but clearly the vast majority of SCUDs got through. You'd better hope they've improved enough if you want them to protect Seoul or Japan or even California from nuclear missiles. That's conceivable, but the initial PR hype and your blithe comments are the steaming pile of BS. On a net basis, the Patriot missiles mainly added to the shrapnel raining down on target areas. By falling into profanity and bordering on ad hominem attacks, you do not reassure people of your view; to the contrary, if the groupthink in Mad Dog Mattisland rants as you do, then it's disconcerting.

I said "clearly the vast majority got through" and I still say zero was the most likely success rate, contrary to initial MSM and politicians claiming over 90%. Here's a GAO link if you care, but you're in flaming duck mode. It's the weekend, I'm not going to waste more of it on your dysfunction.

I said "we didn't knock down any," and linked the Israeli Minister of Defense who complained about the "ineffectiveness of Patriot missile against Scuds". Ineffectiveness means he was calling them ineffective, meaning they didn't work. That remains the most likely answer, and then I said "clearly the vast majority got through." You ought to be able to distinguish between different confidence levels. Your own linked video says they got through "more often than not" and yet you explode into ad hominem attacks against me and falsely accuse me of citing no sources when in reality my comment had cited the Israeli Minister of Defense. "In sum the findings and analysis carried out in Israel during and after the war produced no authenticated proof that al-Hussein warheads were hit or destroyed by Patriot missiles." In KSA, 28 Americans were killed by a single SCUD despite being "protected" by a battery of "Patriot" missiles. If I had to bet on a round number between zero and 100% success, I'd bet on zero, especially when considering the additional shrapnel that rained down on target areas including residential neighborhoods.

It's interesting that you do exactly what you accuse women of doing. I stuck to the issue of whether the Patriot missiles had shot down SCUDs over Israel in the first Gulf War, and cited facts including what the Israeli Defense Minister said. You became emotional, exclaiming profanity and attacking me personally instead of sticking to the issue. Others have noticed the same pattern in your comments.

MUH WARZ!!! NUCLEAR DEZSTRUCTION!11!Eleventy!!1

I guess those would be the illicit Russian banking/financial activities they could never find except in their dope dreams.

Fucking Nadler let out a LibbyFuck Freudian slip today on the news, when he said their goal was to make the American people BELIEVE that Trump committed crimes warranting impeachment. He didn't say, 'find PROOF'. He made it quite clear that the only goal was to bamboozle the narcotized free shitters enough to make them believe. I could scarcely believe he actually said it.

Are bombs flying yet?

lol

Democrats would love Trump to start ww3 so they could feel justified.

Nah

He’s too busy making America great