You started out with this:
Kady M.
261

Move of the goalposts. Now that I’ve shown you that you were wrong, you’ve changed from “haven’t seen a single case” to “oh, it was a justifiable response.”

This is playing word games. A justifiable response is by definition justified and thus cannot be offensive. It’s defensive. I specifically used the term offensive.

Shrugs. I knew about the drills, and I don’t read agitprop sites like counterpunch. So, they were reported either on a Drudge link, Daily Caller, the Hill, or on RealClear.

This is a typical response from someone who cannot respond to the contents of the argument so they resort to “oh the source is leftwing/rightwing agitprop”. I could have said the same for your New York Times article. It is agit prop liberal neocon rag. I also quoted from Arms Control Association which is a non-partisan organization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_Control_Association

So, since the military drills were AFTER the threat to Guam……how is it that you fail to see the cart-horse problem here?

Guam? First you said Japan and now you’ve moved the calendar back to Guam which was before. The Guam threats (no, they did not fly a missile over Guam) was in response (yes, response does not mean it was offensive) to Trump’s speech of “Fire and fury like the world has never seen” speech.

If the US offers talks, and the NKoreans choose not to talk, then the fault lies with the Koreans, not the US.

As the citation showed, the US offered talks on condition that the DPRK disarmed FIRST. By any standards demanding the ends beneficial to one side as a precondition before talks even begin is not negotiation.

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated N C’s story.