illinilaw08

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 9, 2017 -> 09:09 AM) Can we please have a solution that doesn't make it easier for them to develop their nukes and kill millions more people, as we have done for the past 50 years? Welp, over the last 50 years, we haven't had a third World War that would have killed millions of people and devastated the Asian economy, while probably not actually helping the North Koreans on the ground. Do you have a solution that doesn't lead to that?

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 9, 2017 -> 09:12 AM) Should we invade Venezuela? Somalia? Syria? I want to help them, but I have seen precious little in the last 20 years that shows that toppling a brutal regime that has suppressed a functioning society leads to better results, and has largely undermined rather than strengthened US interests. In Iraq we removed a true existential threat to the Kurds from power, and 10 years later they were facing existential threat all the same. And the power vacuum opened up threats that were frankly far more decentralized and dangerous than a madman with an army. Libya, Egypt, Iraq should be stronger now. They are if anything the same or worse. The welfare of their people is the same or worse. Anxiously awaits a response from SS2k5....

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 05:35 PM) But when you look past all the political bulls***, do you really think they were as big of a threat to the US as North Korea is today or will be soon? NK is a much bigger threat to our ally, South Korea than they are to us. Much, much bigger threat. Would you advocate unilaterally starting war with North Korea today, even if South Korea doesn't want that war?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 05:24 PM) Look I know the most important thing here is the partisan talking points, and how to blame Bush for this. It isn't the millions of people who have already lost their lives, nor is it the millions who are going to lose their lives, and it definitely isn't a guy with nuclear technology who is threatening to nuke Guam and the rest of the USA. We have been appeasing NK for 50 years now and it has worked impressively well. If you don't count the millions of dead non-white people, really this is fine. Dude, the intervention that you seem to want (but won't come out and say you want), is literally the sure fire way to cause hundreds of thousands of deaths of non-white people. Unless you are making a humanitarian point about suffering within North Korea, the bolded sentence makes absolutely no sense. EDIT to fix typo.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 05:04 PM) I am embarrassed to call myself a democrat after reading some of the responses in this thread. Yup, let's just continue to do nothing until a madman has the ability to wipe out millions of Americans in a blink of an eye. That seems like the obvious solution... It's kind of embarrassing to me that so many people would be so casual with the lives of, conservatively, hundreds of thousands of our allies. The options were diplomacy and sanctions, or war. And war with North Korea risked bringing China, and maybe even Russia, into the conflict (not to mention the aforementioned hundreds of thousands of South Koreans). To reiterate, it's not fine that Kim Jong-Un has nuclear capabilities. But there isn't now, and has never been, a good solution to this problem that doesn't lead to hundreds of thousands or even millions of deaths.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 04:58 PM) Annex? lmao. Yeah, that is what this is about. They are just talking about nuking people meanwhile spending decades developing a bomb. This is fine. It's not fine, and no one is suggesting that it is. Invading North Korea would have led to, conservatively, hundreds of thousands of deaths. Would that have been fine, too?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 04:38 PM) Did we offer them the Rhineland yet? I, too, remember when North Korea invaded the rest of Asia. SSK, you are better than this. Using diplomacy as a tactic to control NK while avoiding war is very, very different than agreeing to give Adolf Hitler other country's territory in order to avoid war. But here's my biggest issue with your contributions to this thread. You haven't proposed a single other option. You are just snarking about "appeasement." If diplomacy wasn't an option, you must have been clamoring with war for North Korea over the past four Presidential administrations. Because that's literally the other option to diplomacy. But you haven't committed to that at any point in this thread.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 03:08 PM) I like how that person first cites this as a problem that's been in existence since Clinton, and then blames Bush, ignores Obama's 8 years of failure, and then concludes with concern for Trump. I also like how he blames Trump for the US having faulty intelligence about the sophistication of their ICBM program....as if they accelerated the program only in the last 6 months of Trump being in office. Wasn't the point re: GWB about the problem with rhetoric that pushes war (see the Axis of Evil comments) when you don't have the capacity to actually push that threat? The rhetoric pushes the other side away from the table and further isolates them. The rhetoric removes diplomacy as an option. I don't know enough to speak to the validity of that argument, but that certainly distinguishes both GWB and Trump's approach to North Korea (to differing degrees) from Clinton and Obama's approaches (unless I'm just missing saber rattling quotes from either of those two).

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 11:27 AM) Doing nothing IS risking millions of lives. That is what you are all missing here. But they aren't white, so American's don't generally care. Now this is a different argument. If you are expressing humanitarian concern about the fate of innocent North Koreans, well, there isn't a good answer there either, obviously. But I would argue that one of the major reasons to not have invaded North Korea in the last 60 years was because of the risk to South Korean lives. Now that they have a nuke, well, that's the first time this situation has the potential - however slim - to impact Americans directly. Long story short, I'm not sure what you are arguing right now...

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 10:20 AM) Yep, waiting sure has been a positive thing. Come on now, SSK. You obviously know that the alternative to all the sanctions and whatnot of NK was an invasion - either by bombing campaign or an actual ground force. Who knows how China reacts to that. NK definitely reacts by sending missiles into South Korea. Millions of South Koreans probably die which destabilizes that entire region. I mean, NK's nuclear program is definitely a concern and a major risk to the West, but let's not act like there was a particularly reasonable alternative to sanctions and more sanctions.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Aug 7, 2017 -> 11:41 AM) I may be misremembering this as well, but I thought he said he didn't know how it got into the assassin's hands, not who the dagger belonged to. Tyrion definitely owned the dagger at some point. I'm fairly certain that's true in both the shows and the books. LF uses that info to create chaos in both universes because it sets Cat on a path that leads to her kidnapping Tyrion and the chaos that ensues. In the books, LF is just taking advantage of an opportunity. In the show? Who knows at this point.

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Aug 7, 2017 -> 10:28 AM) IIRC, Littlefinger lost the dagger in a bet with Robert. Joffrey stole the dagger from Robert to give to the cut throat to "put Bran out of his misery." I'm pretty sure that's the implication in the books. Tyrion does an investigation and confronts Joffrey with his accusation. Based on how uncomfortable it makes Joffrey, Tyrion decides that the theory is correct. I don't think the show universe has had anything like that, however. IIRC, the assassination mystery is still unknown in the show.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 31, 2017 -> 12:43 PM) That to me is the biggest problem. While it may have been hard to track the Lannister army, you would have thought they would have had some advanced warning that the Tarley's flipped. You have to imagine someone was still loyal to the Tyrells. Yeah, the information asymmetry is pretty staggering. The Lannisters know everything (including battle reports from the fighting pits of Meereen) because, presumably, Qyburn took over Varys' network of "little birds" (which kind of leaves Varys without any real use). Dany's team literally knows nothing and is bumbling around blindly (didn't know Euron had a giant fleet, didn't know the Lannisters had abandoned Casterly Rock, didn't know that Tarly had flipped to the Lannisters).

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jul 31, 2017 -> 10:15 AM) I thought they handled that pretty well though. Her counter wasn't just a promise to pay in 14 days, it was that the bank has no choice but to fund Cersei's war. They can't align with Dany because Dany is opposed to how the bank makes money. The bank loses if Dany wins the war. Isn't the Iron Bank in Braavos, the "Free City of Braavos," on the show though? I'm not entirely sure that it's consistent that the Iron Bank would be like "we can't support Dany because she freed slaves in Slavers Bay and if she wins the Iron Throne she will spread those ideas to Westeros where slavery is already illegal?" That scene didn't work for me. But that scene kind of points to a larger issue. Cersei literally destroyed the Sept of Baelor, killing a popular Pope and popular Queen in the process. She's calling it "an accident" but there's no way that everybody doesn't know the truth of the matter - that Cersei did this. That act makes her the Mad Queen. But she is able to hand wave it away by being like "remember how crazy Aerys was? What if Dany is mad!" Or, "yeah, we haven't paid bills in awhile and, yeah, that caused you to bankroll Stannis. But Dany is anti-slavery! And something about Lannisters always paying their debts!" The point is that it doesn't make narrative sense for Cersei to continue to be able to persuade and consolidate her power. She started this season in a terrible spot, after having committed a straight up atrocity (that should have actually led to a popular revolt against her right?) and in 3 episodes, she's more powerful than she, or the Lannisters, have been at literally any other point in the show.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jul 31, 2017 -> 08:43 AM) I guess I assumed that Euron was back at King's Landing presenting Cersei with Ellaria at or before the time that Jon left Winterfell. So if Euron left King's Landing at about the same time, is it really that far off the time line? You have to assume it took weeks for Jon to get to Dragonstone, and then I think they hinted that he was there for a while (even if you don't see it). I don't think we're supposed to believe that the Dragonstone stuff happened in a single day. If we're really going to gripe about the timeline, what's taking the Knight's King so long to attack the south? They've been walking for years. Or the one I have the most trouble with - how many forces do the Lannisters really have? They have to have enough of a garrison to protect King's Landing from a direct attack, but they also have enough to keep a small garrison at Castle Rock and then an invasion force at Highgarden? And more to the point - it's questionable whether Cersei or Jaime would take that force away from King's Landing knowing that Dany and her dragons are already back in Westeros. I get that they needed gold to pay off the Iron Bank, but what's the point of getting that gold if Dany attacks King's Landing and everyone is killed/captured? Seriously on the bolded. I agree with the last point as well. Last season, the Lannister's forces were spread so thin that they couldn't deal with a couple Faith's Militant with clubs. This season, they are an unstoppable force keeping peace in the Riverlands, garrisoning Casterly Rock, protecting KL, and apparently are strong enough that LF and Sansa are worried about them invading the North in winter? Not enough character development going on here. After blowing up her allies and the Pope of Westeros last season, Cersei has seen no political consequences for that act. At all. It's jarring to me.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 27, 2017 -> 03:35 PM) McCain, Graham, Cassidy and Johnson are having a conference demanding that the House assure them that they won't pass the bill these Senators are going to be passing later today/early tomorrow because it's a terrible bill that will damage the whole health care market. Did no one point out to these morons that they could talk to the House ahead of time and they don't need to rush into this absurd situation? The Senators can also... not pass this bill that they don't want to become law. This is absurd.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 27, 2017 -> 11:45 AM) Department of Energy, aka our nuclear arsenal, is being gutted by the Trump administration and Perry is essentially a useless and clueless figurehead doing nothing with the department. This article is super long and I'm only excerpting from the first third, but this is extremely alarming. Since the election, I have waffled between whether I prefer Trump or Pence as POTUS. I consider Pence to be extremely dangerous in basically any area of social policy, but with the governing experience to actually get stuff done. But then I read articles like this - and I have to imagine that a Pence led administration wouldn't have let the Department of Energy get to where that article depicts it. This stuff shouldn't be partisan. The Department of Energy's role internationally in training inspectors, and finding loose plutonium and uranium, shouldn't be controversial. This is pretty terrifying...

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Jul 25, 2017 -> 05:30 PM) This dude has a much better chance of actually making a roster. He may come up when Melky goes. This. With the glut of OFs in the lower levels, a guy who will head straight to AAA and probably to the majors shortly thereafter fills an organizational need. Plus, even though it's in the PCL, low K numbers and decent power feels like a pretty solid return.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Jul 25, 2017 -> 10:32 AM) Yeah and if some random Sons of Harpy can hit a dragon with spears then I think the crossbows will get at least one big hit on a dragon, which will either kill or at the very least seriously injure it. I also think the writers will want to show that the dragons aren't invincible in a battle. So, the dragons were pretty young then. The mythology of dragons (in both the books and the show) is that they have extraordinarily difficult to kill or even injure. They were the equivalent of Westeros nuclear weapons. The difficulty with dragons was actually being able to control them. Thus, while it might make sense that a random spear could hurt a young dragon, it makes less sense that it would work on a fully grown dragon - and it seems to not even a little comply with the shows mythology that "giant crossbow" is a real threat. The giant crossbow is stupid in any event because it should already exist in this world (ie, it's not some super impressive discovery by Qyburn). Additionally, in the battle they showed this week, there are literally flying projectiles zooming through the sky - again making it appear that this weapon already exists. It was a pretty seriously underwhelming reveal. I mean, the dude that creating FrankenMountain's best anti-dragon idea is a super big crossbow? Come on...

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 20, 2017 -> 07:33 AM) It's as if he is playing lawyer and trying to get off on technicalities. Intent has nothing to do with it. My biggest issue with all of this is how overt he is that his people should serve in Trump's best interests. Sessions recuses himself on Russia? Trump wouldn't have tapped him for AG if he'd known that (ie, the AG should be protecting the President). The FBI Director should report directly to the President. Governing this nation is not about ego and it's not about the best interest of the President. It's about doing what's best for the country.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jul 17, 2017 -> 10:43 AM) 1. Probably the best guess, the most valuable and has been mentioned in the books. Plus it makes the war more interesting. 2. Did they go with Dany or just send ships/troops? 3. At this point, does it matter? Her legitimacy isn't really the problem right now. 4. Agreed on not making logistical sense. It has to be #1. The biggest challenge this season is going to be telling a story that makes Dany's invasion of Westeros compelling. Cersei just killed the Westeros Pope and the majority of the family that provided them food and troops (Tyrells). Who (other than Euron) is going to ally with her (particularly since the Lannister's money problems were a real storyline a couple seasons back when the dude from the Iron Bank backed Stannis). How can she possibly hold King's Landing against Dothrak/Tyrells/Dorne/some portion of the Iron Islands/Unsullied/Dragons? The only way that Cersei is anything more than a passing obstacle to Dany is if Cersei gets herself her own dragon...

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jul 11, 2017 -> 05:34 PM) I don't think the Rockies trade for Q. Yeah, they never made much sense to me. Freeland, Hoffman and Gray look like long term starters there, and Chatwood, Anderson, Marquez have shown flashes.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 11, 2017 -> 05:30 PM) Tapia, McMahon and Pint would be a good deal. With that said, I don't think Rockies trade for Q. I'd be pretty surprised if Tapia moves. He's been in their everyday lineup for the last couple weeks at the MLB level. If Rodgers isn't on the table, maybe Tapia's production makes Dahl expendable? Dahl, McMahon, Pint might work, though Pint hasn't been very good this year.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 11, 2017 -> 01:18 PM) That is a quality reframing, I will admit that. What it doesn't identify is that this is what is somehow being made public, not what is happening at the intelligence level. Just because we are now learning of it, doesn't mean they are. In fact the whole idea that more and more top secret intelligence is being leaked only reinforces the political nature of this now. So we are back to a political operation that denigrates our entire government stability and standing while risking war with our most dangerous enemy, all in an attempt to delegitimize someone who needs absolutely no help delegitimatizing himself in front of the entire world. What exactly did I reframe? A Special Prosecutor has been appointed. Flynn resigned because of Russian contacts. Don Jr.'s e-mails show that, at a minimum, he, Kushner and Manafort were willing to accept dirt on Hillary Clinton from the Russians. All of that is true and factual. What I continue to miss in your posts is how this investigation puts us at risk of war with Russia. You keep saying that as if it's fact, but without any analysis of why that's true.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 11, 2017 -> 12:29 PM) The onus changed 100% when Hillary lost. It wouldn't have been politicized if she had won, and it wasn't before because they thought she would win. You keep referring to this investigation of the Trump campaign's collusion with Russia in hacking the election as "politicized." This is a criminal investigation into the extent to which the Trump campaign colluded with Russia in the 2016 election, and the extent to which Trump obstructed justice when he asked Comey to stop investigating Flynn, and then subsequently fired Comey. Previously, Flynn had to resign after failing to disclose contacts with Russians. Today we got e-mails released that prove Donald Trump Jr. (and Kushner and Manafort) met with people who claimed to be Russian operatives in an attempt to receive negative information in Russia's possession that portrayed Hillary Clinton in a negative light - something that is absolutely illegal. What will it take for you to stop calling this "politicized" and start calling it what it is?