Japan has been involved with conducting military exercises against them for many years. Do you expect them not to respond?
You started out with this:
I certainly haven’t seen a single case of them initiating any acts that can be reasonably construed as offensive.
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.”
You need to make up your mind what story you want to stick to.
What the media failed to mention was that, for the last three weeks, Japan, South Korea and the US have been engaged in large-scale joint-military drills on Hokkaido Island and in South Korea.
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.
So, since the military drills were AFTER the threat to Guam……how is it that you fail to see the cart-horse problem here?
Tillerson is not an charge of deciding whether to take up their offer.
Again, you’re moving the goalposts. Your original comment was:
They have been asking for negotiations for decades and all of their attempts have been rebuffed.
If the US offers talks, and the NKoreans choose not to talk, then the fault lies with the Koreans, not the US.
You are also inaccurate with regard to post Bush era. Bush refused to negotiate with the DPRK despite initially agreeing to talks.
Yea……that’s just not true.
Six-party talks - Wikipedia
These talks were a result of North Korea withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 2003. Apparent…
The US was at the table for all sessions. Negotiations took place. They are documented. You may hold the opinion, which apparently you do, that the US was not reasonable and that the North Koreans were, but negotiations did in fact take place.
You seem to just buy the narrative of the MSM regarding the DPRK without doing any of the background work necessary to understand the context.
I find that an odd statement, since all of your citations come from left-wing agitprop sites known to have a tenuous relationship with the truth.