We should have let the Germans keep Europe.

No surprise that a Trumpkin is pro-Hitler.



LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL pause for breath LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLOLwil

I'm sure wil and I have plenty of disagreements, but can you explain how it's not in the best interest of world to have as few nuclear capable countries as possible? I would think that the more countries that possess nculear weapons (especially those run by regimes), the greater the likelihood of a nuclear holocaust. At the very least, likelihood of nuclear arms being dealt to some terrorist group.

It's not like the old days where mutual destruction served as a deterrent. Not sure how N.Korea's crazy leader feels about mutual destruction, but I guarantee a group like ISIS doesn't give a ****.

So yeah. Ima scared little coward. I would think every country in the world should agree that preventing ANY more countries from gaining nuclear capabilities is a good thing that should be agreed on.

Or are you taking the NRA view that if everyone were armed with a gun then everyone would be less likely to use one? Wasn't this a Trump talking point?
Didn't he say, "Why not?" when asked if other countries should have nuclear weapons because they're gonna get them anyway?

You are better off always taking the opposite position of jalfrezi. He's the most incorrect human being I've every come across. He makes kerowo look like the Oracle of Delphi.

Every country wants to see fewer nuclear powers but no country including (or especially) the US wants to be the one to give them up.

The much-heralded SALT 2 treaty between Carter and Brezhnev merely capped the number of these horrendous weapons.

Good luck persuading other countries not to develop nukes when you possess thousands of them yourself.

ISIS is a terrorist group than transcends national borders, so I don't know why you're bringing them into this. They have neither the sovereignty nor the means to develop ICBMs, and in any case are a diminishing power in the ME.

One thing we can agree on is that it's sensible to distance oneself from the childish views of Hitler-supporting, child-face punching, penis-patrolling wil.

Okay, but we have to deal with the reality as it exists NOW. You're correct that there's no going back and taking away the nuclear capabilities of the countries that already possess them. But it makes no sense why this should mean, "Oh, what the heck? Then let's let EVERY country who wants them have them!" is a sound ideological strategy.

I bring them into this because the more sources there are to obtain nukes from, the more likely it is that one of them will sell them a bomb capable of wiping out a major city. It has to do with math and simple probability. If my math is wrong, please point out my error.

All it takes is one rogue nation to sell a nuke or even a dirty bomb. Again, the more sources there are, the more likely it happens. Also, the more countries that possess nuclear weapons, the more likely one of them uses them and a nuclear holocaust occurs. We can't go backwards and take away nuclear capabilities, so please respond with a forward thinking solution.

+1

"ISIS is a terrorist group than transcends national borders"......what?

Please proof read posts. Grammar grammar grammar!

Why would Jeffry Dahmer eat human body parts?

Uh! Ya! You do realize that NK has different proticals for launching a nuclear attack? The people think their leader is a mystical being.

Some people may be used to living in caves and be ok with nuclear holocaust. I live in a nice house in a nice city in a civilized society. I'd like to keep it that way.

Goofy has become backround noise just like tehwookie. I guess after tens of thousands of posts you run out of things to say.

Hey Goofy! How about write something with substance regarding the NK issue instead of trying to "gotcha" everybody.

This is exactly why the Iran nuclear deal is such a disaster. Amazingly, 90% of the idiots on this forum support this deal. Thankfully! The conservatives are in power to undue this filth.

You are nothing more than a reprehensible tool who earlier posted (I can quote of you want) that you didn't care if NK nuke a city as long as it's not your city, so please **** off.

That's a typo, not grammar, idiot. For an example of terrible grammar have a look at your own illiterate scribblings.

"I can quote of you want"

Somebody is on tilt😀

I don't think there is a solution other than diplomacy via China, which is where the West should be focussing its efforts.

Countries could agree to spend less on nukes which would be very welcome and leave more money for other causes, but I don't believe that this forum's preference of bombing a country for trying to develop the same capability on a much smaller scale that you've possessed for decades is the way forward. Make no mistake the current situation is extremely alarming, but we haven't reached lolwil's full scale pants-on-head-running-around-screaming "panic" stage yet.

Is it your view that since the US has nukes itself it would be hypocritical and wrong for them to use force against even the worst governments trying to acquire them?

I suppose once we reach that stage it's too late....isn't it? Kinda like with the Nazis and the disaster in Syria(line in the sand).

There is no equivalency between a rogue nation trying to develop Nukes and a civilized nation.......don't ever forget that.

The populations of many countries now view the US as being one of the worst regimes in the world. Broad minded Americans, of which there are many here, accept that this is a common and disturbing development.

That's why these countries are on the travel ban list.

No you prick, just most of the countries in the west that don't have white supremacy designs of their own.

So? That doesn't answer my question. KJU looks quite serious about acquiring nuclear weapons, even in the face of intense diplomatic pressure. This actually makes a lot of strategic sense for him, hence the ineffectiveness of diplomacy so far. The US should just let him because of fairness?

It does implicitly answer it. If the US is one of the worst regimes in the world frequently given to foreign invasions, has nuclear weapons and is the only country ever to have used them against populations, then preventing a possibly equally (though differently) bad nation from acquiring them for fear of that nation using them on another nation (though their true purpose may only be as a deterrent) would be hypocritical.

That's not to say that it wouldn't be a practical move from the US's point of view, though.

I'm granting you the charge of hypocrisy and unfairness against the US and asking if you think that is sufficient to rule out any military intervention. My view is that it doesn't - that preventing a breakdown of the current global nuclear regime is more important.

Also, I'm surprised you think the US is possibly equally bad as the Kim regime. We have very different moral frameworks.

jalfrezi is insane

the us has designs of white supremacy and is equally as bad as NK?

I realized that 2p2 politics forum is a den of leftist cooks, but this is just insanity

Jalfrezi and his ilk are not exactly known for their high morals.

His comments about the equality of regimes proves he is nothing but trash.