Ask MSNBC

Is there anything at all that North Korea, or anyone else, could do that would lead MSNBC to support a military option against North Korea?

Bush pere gave Saddam an ultimatum, told him to get out of Kuwait or else, and gave him a deadline.

The deadline was far enough out for ostentatious preparations and coalition building, as well as preparing the international community, all making it abundantly clear to everyone this thing would be happening.

Saddam made numerous unacceptable counteroffers that the US just slapped down as they came.

Some of the foot-dragging US allies did much the same, and the US response was much the same.

When the deadline came and Saddam had stood his ground Bush gave the order.

Iraq's forces were utterly defeated and the country conquered in less than two weeks.

After which Bush pere did not force regime change, but regime conduct change.

Is that a model for what Trump and the administration need to do about Korea?

They're not there yet, still pushing for more extensive and draconian sanctions.

But this.

On Andrea Mitchell the MSNBC's house general McCaffrey construed General Mattis' remarks (yesterday?) as saying the use of nukes against NK to remove their nuclear threat to us was on the table, that various military options had been presented to Trump by Mattis and conventional weapons looked like risking too much harm to South Korea, and that nonmilitary methods are just not going to work.

A clip of Mattis had been shown as he said a US attack on NK would ensue upon any threat to the US or its allies by NK, and that the attack would not be aimed at completely destroying or wiping out North Korea ("the complete annihilation of the country").

Does the possession of the ability to attack us with nukes count as such a threat?

Does the imminence of such possession count as such a threat?