(08-30-2018 07:31 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I mean, using Tanqs silly and overly simplistic house party analogy, NK is literally building a stage in their backyard for their next house party, but Tanq thinks they won’t throw another party because they haven’t in a while. NK is developing a new ICBM - do you think they won’t go test it?

Yet previously you stated

Quote:Yep, the US-NK relations can be easily exemplified by your relationship with rowdy neighbors. Perfect analogy!

Quite the disparity between "perfect analogy" (with superlatives) and "silly and overly simplistic house party". I think I'll start listening to you when you are somewhat consistent and not speaking every fing side. Just saying.

Im just pointing out your steadfast, somewhat bitter clinging to the notion that things are 'back to square one'. Kind of goes hand in hand with absolute goal in life with that TDS you seem to have, to be honest. Thats the reason Im not surprised.

I wish your side of the spectrum would have had that same stick up their ass with the Iranian nuclear program. Funny that. Just saying.

Or perhaps we just act like a super Loomis armored delivery service and drop 500 million to 2 billion in cold hard cash with the mullahs while we stick our heads in the sand -- sounds like a winner plan to me!!!!

And I wish that your side of the spectrum would have had that same stick up their ass over the 8 years previous to Trump re: NK missile and nuclear capabilities. Again, funny that. Just saying.

Are things 'peachy rosy' keen. Far from it. But, the backdrop has actually changed to a degree. So I find it quite amusing that the TDSers yelp about that change in backdrop while steadfastly refusing to even note it. I just wish 'your side' had been as keen and astute (and vocal, mind you) to the issue while Obama literally put those jug ears into the sand on both those proliferation issues.

Quote:But right now, it looks like NK is the same old NK - unwilling to actually make changes that deescalate the situation on the peninsula.

Hmmm... which is 'less escalation' --

a) purportedly building ICBMs;

b) purportedly building ICBMs, throwing missiles over Japan on a monthly basis, violating their sovereign airspace, having your leader threaten to nuke a military base, and constant clamoring for war.

Most rational people would say that a change from b) to a) is a de-escalation. Perhaps not of the scope we may all want to see, but to characterize the delta between the two as 'no change' is just logically stupid.

Yet that is your premise.