OUTLOOK 1;- The crazed dictator Jong-Un will have to be dealt with sooner or later.

If we adopt the wimp's option of later, then the stakes will be significantly higher as North Korea's nuclear capabilities are advancing at a much faster pace than anyone had previously realised.

OUTLOOK2;- The person who issues threats and engages in aggressive rhetoric isn't the guy to worry about.

In a mano y mano situation it's the guy who's shiting his trucks who runs off at the mouth with 'tough guy' talk and descriptive threats in an attempt to intimidate his adversary.

It's the guy who busts a bottle over your teeth without warning who is the real danger.

The dangerous difference here is that Jong-un is an unpredictable psychotic lunatic with access to weapons of mass destruction.

If, and only if, we can be sure that we have full knowledge of all of this madman's nuclear missile locations then a pre-emptive strike should be effected immediately.

If we are not totally certain then it we must threaten China with a total trade embargo if they do not impose a complete ban of all imports from this rogue nation.

By placing China in a position of ;- 'shit or get off the pot', we will be able to judge with whom it's loyalties really lie.

I could go as far as d, only because we're at the end of wait and see, and the milder steps before d have already been done. Granted d could lead to all the rest of the escalation choices but then again it may not so long as d is an effective hit where it counts.

And I'm honestly not sure where Trump's popularity goes after such a thing. For some it will be vindictation they were right to elect him and for others just proof he wasn't equipped for the world politics stage.

Finally, if N Korea succeeded in blasting Guam there would be a lot to talk about and plenty of military mobilization but in a way that doesn't really hit home. And instead, if they succeeded in hitting a blue state big city we'd see alarm but Trump support would pretty much still fall along red/blue state and party lines. BUT... if N Korea somehow hit a red state key place, even if it was simply radiation pollution over a big swath of the breadbasket, then I think even the red state supporters would reconsider their support for him. And that doesn't necessarily mean they'd stop liking Trump, only that they'd maybe question the wisdom of putting a hot head with no foreign policy or government experience in charge of it.

How far were you willing to go when you voted for Hillary Clinton who supports No Restriction abortions and put our national security at risk? How much inhumanity are you willing to support?

Your intolerant hatred for Trump makes you blind to your own inhumanity.

LOOK IN THE MIRROR!

That's a difficult question. I would support D in terms of targeted assassination but not so far as a nuclear program preemptive strike. I would support more sanctions dependent on the sanctions themselves and not just for the sake of puffing our chest and strutting. I would even be ok with some skirmishing IF there was an end game to it and not just random occurrences.

I hope....really hope....we don't have another war on our hands. I think Kim Jong-Un is just crazy enough to try something that he won't be able to finish IF he is left alone and no other country backs him up. He doesn't give a damn about his people, only his status and that makes him dangerous.

Media Flashback: Clinton’s Nuclear Deal With North Korea (1994)

“This is a good deal for the United States,” said President Clinton. “North Korea will freeze and then dismantle its nuclear program. South Korea and our other allies will be better protected. The entire world will be safer as we slow the spread of nuclear weapons.”

Here’s the breakdown of the now-dead Agreed Framework with North Korea courtesy of Nuclear Threat Initiative:

freeze and eventually dismantle its graphite-moderated reactors;

seal, cease activities at, and eventually dismantle its reprocessing facilities;

cooperate in finding a safe method to store existing spent fuel from its 5 MW experimental reactor and to dispose of such fuel in a safe manner that does not involve reprocessing in the DPRK;

allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to monitor the freeze of its reactors; allow the implementation of its safeguards agreement under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) allow the IAEA to resume ad-hoc and routine inspections of facilities not subject to the freeze upon conclusion of a Supply Agreement for the light-water reactor (LWR) project;

come into full compliance with its safeguards agreement with the IAEA upon conclusion of a significant portion of the LWR project; remain a party to the NPT; and

take consistent steps to implement the North-South Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula; and engage in North-South dialogue.

In return for its obligations above, the DPRK was guaranteed the following:

two LWRs [light water reactor] with a total generating capacity of approximately 2,000 MW(e), financed and supplied by an international consortium, by 2003;

150,000 tons of heavy fuel oil by October 1995 for heating and electricity production foregone due to the freeze of its graphite-moderated reactors, and 500,000 tons annually thereafter until the completion of the first LWR; and

formal assurances from the United States against the threat or use of nuclear weapons.

In addition, the Agreed Framework required the United States and the DPRK to:

reduce barriers to trade and investment, including restrictions on telecommunications services and financial services and transactions; open liaison offices in each other’s capitals; and

upgrade bilateral relations to ambassadorial level as progress is made on issues of concern to each side.

Hey Leftist how well did Bill do getting North Korea's nuclear weapons eliminated ? LMAO

I may back Trumps top Secretaries and ambassadors, I don't think THEY will back Trump very far. The new American company is: TRUMP LTD.