The Korean Crisis - How Will It Play Out?

[CountDeMoney]

Hating on me is not going to address your self-loathing about being a Canadian, V. 
That is something you, and only you, can solve. 

[Ed Anger]

How can anybody hate Seedy? He's a teddy bear.

[The Minsky Moment]

Yes, move to Canada and it's like Trump doesn't even exist. 

Yeah really.  Everyone knows prevailing wind patterns would push the fallout over the border.

[grumbler]

How can anybody hate Seedy? He's a teddy bear.

I don't think viper gets the joke.  He's otnay ootay ightbray, you know.  His hate amuses the rest of us.

[PDH]

October is the new September.

[Eddie Teach]

October is the new September.

Just went for a swim. 

[CountDeMoney]

The Amazon Washington Post
The Fix Analysis
Almost half of Republicans want war with North Korea, a new poll says. Is it the Trump Effect?
By Aaron Blake October 15 at 8:30 AM

There was a pretty striking finding in Thursday's Quinnipiac University poll: Fully 46 percent of Republicans — a plurality — said they would support a preemptive strike against North Korea.

That's nearly half of President Trump's party that is ready for war — today — with Kim Jong Un, his nuclear weapons and all. (Forty-one percent said they opposed a preemptive strike.)

It's no surprise that Republicans are more hawkish on this than Democrats are; that's generally the case on foreign policy. But basically nobody is talking about the prospect of a strike right now. Even when Trump talks about it, he's responding to North Korea threatening the United States or its allies.

Yet it also seems possible that Trump's ramped-up rhetoric on this could be having an effect on his base. Trump in August promised "fire and fury" if North Korea ran afoul of him. Last month, he threatened in his speech at the United Nations to "totally destroy" the country — a threat that seemed to tie average North Koreans to their government's demise. He has repeatedly called Kim "Rocket Man" and generally proved fond of the kind of saber-rattling we expect from the other side of this standoff.

So does he suddenly have Republicans gearing up to wave the flag of war? Maybe.

There has been limited polling on this question over the years, but the new survey does show a marked increase from previous ones. In 2006, for example, a Fox News-Opinion Dynamics poll asked whether the United States should continue with diplomacy or use a preemptive strike "to stop North Korea from continuing to develop nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles." In that case, 20 percent of respondents overall and just 28 percent of Republicans picked the preemptive strike.

However, a Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted a couple of weeks ago also differs markedly from the new Quinnipiac survey. The late-September Post-ABC poll asked whether the United States should launch a military strike "only if North Korea attacks the U.S. or its allies first" or "before it can attack the U.S. or its allies." In that case, 23 percent overall and 30 percent of Republicans picked the preemptive-strike option, and Republicans were about two to one against it.

It's difficult to believe that Republican support for a preemptive strike suddenly rose by 16 points over the past two weeks, given that all of Trump's comments noted above came before both polls — and given that there haven't been many other developments of late. More likely, it seems, the truth lies somewhere between the two polls, with the questions' wording affecting how people responded.

But it's also true that the president is a politician who is very focused on what his base likes. He has proved he can affect its views and priorities. So perhaps it's no surprise that the GOP is at least somewhat more ready to strike North Korea today than it was back in 2006. And either way, it's still a substantial proportion of the party.

[dps]

The Amazon Washington Post

There has been limited polling on this question over the years, but the new survey does show a marked increase from previous ones. In 2006, for example, a Fox News-Opinion Dynamics poll asked whether the United States should continue with diplomacy or use a preemptive strike “to stop North Korea from continuing to develop nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.” In that case, 20 percent of respondents overall and just 28 percent of Republicans picked the preemptive strike.

Of course, there's been 11 years of diplomacy failing to curtail North Korean development of nukes and missiles, so perhaps it's not unreasonable that people are thinking that maybe we shouldn't keep following the same failed course.

[Razgovory]

The Amazon Washington Post

There has been limited polling on this question over the years, but the new survey does show a marked increase from previous ones. In 2006, for example, a Fox News-Opinion Dynamics poll asked whether the United States should continue with diplomacy or use a preemptive strike "to stop North Korea from continuing to develop nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles." In that case, 20 percent of respondents overall and just 28 percent of Republicans picked the preemptive strike.

Of course, there's been 11 years of diplomacy failing to curtail North Korean development of nukes and missiles, so perhaps it's not unreasonable that people are thinking that maybe we shouldn't keep following the same failed course.

And so the reasonable alternative is...?

[CountDeMoney]

Of course, there's been 11 years of diplomacy failing to curtail North Korean development of nukes and missiles, so perhaps it's not unreasonable that people are thinking that maybe we shouldn't keep following the same failed course.

11 years?  Now, now...we're really talking almost 25 years going back to Clinton's Agreed Framework and that includes two terms of a Bush's Axis of Evil^tm, so let's not try to pin the rap on on the first nigger we see matching the general description, OK?  Asshole.

[garbon]

I'm confused. We've only been dealing with the latest leader of NK for 6 years...

[dps]

Of course, there's been 11 years of diplomacy failing to curtail North Korean development of nukes and missiles, so perhaps it's not unreasonable that people are thinking that maybe we shouldn't keep following the same failed course.

11 years?  Now, now...we're really talking almost 25 years going back to Clinton's Agreed Framework and that includes two terms of a Bush's Axis of Evil^tm, so let's not try to pin the rap on on the first nigger we see matching the general description, OK?  Asshole.

11 years since the earlier poll cited in the article, and the first couple of years of that would have been under President Bush the Younger.

[CountDeMoney]

You ready to nuke those slopes now into the stone age star-spangled style since the nigger wouldn't do it, dps?  Is that what you're saying, since we "keep following the same failed course?"

[Eddie Teach]

I'm confused. We've only been dealing with the latest leader of NK for 6 years...

Like father, like son.

[dps]

You ready to nuke those slopes now into the stone age star-spangled style since the nigger wouldn't do it, dps?  Is that what you're saying, since we "keep following the same failed course?"

I'd settle for a decapitation strike on the leadership.