I don't think China or the US will invade.
The 'Grand Bargain', as I see it is that China will allow the US to lob some cruise missiles and smart bombs on selected targets and then let the South Koreans mop up. I'm almost 100% sure most of the Norks will quickly put down their arms at that point.
Then hopefully the US will leave that friggin place.

Replies: @Heath, @The Scalpel

in response to another's post heath wrote:

"you forget that Wilson is also 6’4 and 225 and had received a commendation for taking down another 300 pound suspect."

I'm sorry but I really see the commentary along this line as being nothing less than just another subversive attempt to flip our traditional values on their heads—this time vis a vis our self-defense laws and ideas—and grant the primary consideration under the law to aggressing thugs.

And, it goes without saying, requiring the victim of an aggressor (which victimhood isn't even disputed) to take instant and accurate measure of the threat they are facing and take such risks of being wrong all so that—horror of horrors—some thug's life isn't cut short. Some thug who—again, without dispute—decided to go out and initiate and perpetrate some violence on some other innocent.

Just the same sort of subversive, counter-culture concern that clearly animates the gun-control claque. With about 35,000 gun deaths per year in this country, and a full 2/3 of those being suicides and another few thousand being justified shootings what you've got left is a relative tiny number of actual innocents getting killed by criminals with guns, and the vast majority of the victims simply being thugs killed by other thugs. Just as any nightly read of the crime section of most any urban newspaper will note.

But—just as those numbers ineluctably show—*that's* who the gun control people are *really* concerned with. To the degree of wanting to take away your right to defend yourself. All to save the life of some thug.

No different than their opposition to the stand your ground law or the Castle doctrine, demanding that in the face of aggression the burden is on you to retreat and take the risks, not on the aggressor to not initiate their violence or lawlessness in the first place.

Or, in other words, working to make the world a safer place for thugs.

Replies: @Chris Mallory

Actually, I forget very little of what makes it into my long-term memory, other than some people's names and the like. (Thirty years ago, yesterday evening, for instance, I met with a couple-- whose names I do recall, but shall herein withhold-- to see "Stop Making Sense" at the Pike Place Market, the day after joining them in the Kingdome to watch the Seahawks host the Lions. While we three were at the game, the Bhopal disaster was unfolding at a Union Carbide plant in India.) As a trained attorney (inter alia), however, I am better able than most to distinguish between what is a material fact and what is not, and especially so within a specifically legal context, like the Ferguson case at issue here.

As I had stated, above, being tackled on pavement can result in instant death, even if the assailant is tiny compared to his victim. The decedent, in the Ferguson case, however, was by no means tiny compared to the policeman whom he attacked, and presumably wished to injure, if not outright kill. The fact that that policeman supposedly had been commended for his capturing a similarly sized miscreant, in the past, is therefore not relevant, let alone material, to the legal issues involved-- e.g., the justified use of force (by an officer of the law) or a general right to personal self-defense (by any man violently attacked by another).

The real power is also controlled by Yakuza.

"the Budapest Agreement declared that the major powers would refrain from directly interfering In Ukrainian affairs

Whose interpretation is that? From the op. cit.: "The memorandum included security assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine...Refrain from using economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence its politics."

So you tell me where Nuland or anyone else made any threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine. Obviously, Putin put the squeeze on Yanukovich to get him to back out of the EU agreement, which was plenty violation enough, but exactly which part of Nuland's money or pastries or taped conversations constitute threats or even something that constitutes economic pressure? And please, do try not to cook up passages from thin air as you just did. That, too, is cheating.

Here's another tip to help you along the way: inducements or bribes are not quite the same thing as pressure. If you doubt me, ask someone who isn't one of Putin's trained monkeys, and they'll back me up.