-
@reprobate said in US Politics:
It is a worrying time when you have trump basically publicly saying
'make another threat and it's nuclear war'. Build a wall. Drain the swampetc etcEdited for context.
-
@Catogrande agreed, but the reaction of the audience is a little more difficult to judge, and the potential consequences a bit more serious.
-
@reprobate Ha! You're not wrong. It was more of a reflection of discussions on here in the past when some have posited that Trump's unrestricted hyperbole might someday lead him to say something dangerous. Something where there is actually a material cost that can't be assuaged by suggesting that it wasn't what he really said.
-
@Catogrande yes indeed, the post apocalyptic press conference with Sanders saying, 'well no that wasn't really what the president meant'...
-
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Crucial yeah. The kings of threatening rhetoric up against a thin skinned narcissist who never backs down. Wins all round.
Perhaps they should play golf to see who wins. It will be the best game of golf ever. Matching each other for holes in one all the way round.
-
The wailing about Trumps emotive language towards North Korea is bloody hilarious.
Because all the pussy footing aorund with appeasements has worked so bloody well hasnt it. Now a dictator nutjob regime has nukes capable of reaching the mainland US.... great job Clinton, Bu x2 2 and Obama.. stella job there guys. You really negotiated up a storm there! If by negotiated you mean bent over and dropped your pants to take one up the Hershey highway.
If Obama was this visionary leader, Nobel peace prize winner and great statesmen he night have actually done ... something (as opposed to talking reeeeeeeally slowly).
If there is a massive conflict, it wont be on Trumps shoulders, it will be the 5-6 presidents before him who had a policy of appeasement and head in the sand stupidity.
Oh boo fucking hoo.. Trump threatened NK, maybe if a few presidents before them had actually done their job the US wouldnt be in this situation.
What exactly is the solution if you think Trump is handling it so badly? How is he supposed to clean up his predecessors mess? -
Also worth noting that Clinton said if NK developed a nuclear bomb:
"we would quickly and overwhelmingly retaliate. It would mean the end of their country as they know it"
Extreme language has often being used in relation to NK. It's a way of escalating from regular diplomacy without actually taking military action
-
@Duluth said in US Politics:
Also worth noting that Clinton said if NK developed a nuclear bomb:
"we would quickly and overwhelmingly retaliate. It would mean the end of their country as they know it"
Extreme language has often being used in relation to NK. It's a way of escalating from regular diplomacy without actually taking military action
Clinton was speaking out of his arse. America would lose all its allies in the region if it acted unilaterally, particularly as everyone knows what the result would look like for South Korea and probably Japan.
China puts up with NK solely because it doesn't want a US ally on its border.
Sooner or later people will come to realise that politicians talking tough are for the benefit of news sound bites.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in North Korea:
The wailing about Trumps emotive language towards North Korea is bloody hilarious.
Because all the pussy footing aorund with appeasements has worked so bloody well hasnt it. Now a dictator nutjob regime has nukes capable of reaching the mainland US.... great job Clinton, Bu x2 2 and Obama.. stella job there guys. You really negotiated up a storm there! If by negotiated you mean bent over and dropped your pants to take one up the Hershey highway.
If Obama was this visionary leader, Nobel peace prize winner and great statesmen he night have actually done ... something (as opposed to talking reeeeeeeally slowly).
If there is a massive conflict, it wont be on Trumps shoulders, it will be the 5-6 presidents before him who had a policy of appeasement and head in the sand stupidity.
Oh boo fucking hoo.. Trump threatened NK, maybe if a few presidents before them had actually done their job the US wouldnt be in this situation.
What exactly is the solution if you think Trump is handling it so badly? How is he supposed to clean up his predecessors mess?Hang on no-one has suggested giving Obama, the Bushes or Clinton a free ride. This is all about how the incumbent President is dealing with a highly important issue. Once again you're picking an argument that isn't there instead of actually critiquing Trump's actions and words.
Every President (Prime Minister, whatever) has always had to deal with the shit pie left behind by his predecessor but what's done is done and it is how the incumbent deals with things that is of immediate importance. You can moan about Trump being held up to a different moral code or level of media intrusion all you want but that cannot paper over how he behaves in office. Deal with that before dealing with any unfairness.
BTW I'm sure that unfairness in politics is an oxymoron.
-
@Catogrande said in North Korea:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in North Korea:
The wailing about Trumps emotive language towards North Korea is bloody hilarious.
Because all the pussy footing aorund with appeasements has worked so bloody well hasnt it. Now a dictator nutjob regime has nukes capable of reaching the mainland US.... great job Clinton, Bu x2 2 and Obama.. stella job there guys. You really negotiated up a storm there! If by negotiated you mean bent over and dropped your pants to take one up the Hershey highway.
If Obama was this visionary leader, Nobel peace prize winner and great statesmen he night have actually done ... something (as opposed to talking reeeeeeeally slowly).
If there is a massive conflict, it wont be on Trumps shoulders, it will be the 5-6 presidents before him who had a policy of appeasement and head in the sand stupidity.
Oh boo fucking hoo.. Trump threatened NK, maybe if a few presidents before them had actually done their job the US wouldnt be in this situation.
What exactly is the solution if you think Trump is handling it so badly? How is he supposed to clean up his predecessors mess?Hang on no-one has suggested giving Obama, the Bushes or Clinton a free ride. This is all about how the incumbent President is dealing with a highly important issue. Once again you're picking an argument that isn't there instead of actually critiquing Trump's actions and words.
Every President (Prime Minister, whatever) has always had to deal with the shit pie left behind by his predecessor but what's done is done and it is how the incumbent deals with things that is of immediate importance. You can moan about Trump being held up to a different moral code or level of media intrusion all you want but that cannot paper over how he behaves in office. Deal with that before dealing with any unfairness.
BTW I'm sure that unfairness in politics is an oxymoron.
What's to critique????
Some country threatens to attack your country and kill your citizens and he says that if they do he will fuck thier shit up like nobody has ever seen before. That's calling a space a spade. .. unless you think NK nuking the US would just lead to sanctions.... -
@Duluth said in North Korea:
Also worth noting that Clinton said if NK developed a nuclear bomb:
"we would quickly and overwhelmingly retaliate. It would mean the end of their country as they know it"
Extreme language has often being used in relation to NK. It's a way of escalating from regular diplomacy without actually taking military action
Likely a stupid thing to have said but if we're looking at a comparison of stupidly inflammatory things Presidents have said, a good comparison would be to look at how many Clinton and Obama did in their 8 years each of Presidency and how many Trump has done in his 6 odd months.
However it is not a competition and has no real relevance, it is what is happening now that is important now.
-
@Catogrande said in North Korea:
@Duluth said in North Korea:
Also worth noting that Clinton said if NK developed a nuclear bomb:
"we would quickly and overwhelmingly retaliate. It would mean the end of their country as they know it"
Extreme language has often being used in relation to NK. It's a way of escalating from regular diplomacy without actually taking military action
Likely a stupid thing to have said but if we're looking at a comparison of stupidly inflammatory things Presidents have said, a good comparison would be to look at how many Clinton and Obama did in their 8 years each of Presidency and how many Trump has done in his 6 odd months.
However it is not a competition and has no real relevance, it is what is happening now that is important now.
Except one was talking developing weapons and the other was about actually using those weapons on the U.S
Some people are so desperate to find fault with Trump that when he states the truth and the obvious towards an enemy some get upset. -
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in North Korea:
@Catogrande said in North Korea:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in North Korea:
The wailing about Trumps emotive language towards North Korea is bloody hilarious.
Because all the pussy footing aorund with appeasements has worked so bloody well hasnt it. Now a dictator nutjob regime has nukes capable of reaching the mainland US.... great job Clinton, Bu x2 2 and Obama.. stella job there guys. You really negotiated up a storm there! If by negotiated you mean bent over and dropped your pants to take one up the Hershey highway.
If Obama was this visionary leader, Nobel peace prize winner and great statesmen he night have actually done ... something (as opposed to talking reeeeeeeally slowly).
If there is a massive conflict, it wont be on Trumps shoulders, it will be the 5-6 presidents before him who had a policy of appeasement and head in the sand stupidity.
Oh boo fucking hoo.. Trump threatened NK, maybe if a few presidents before them had actually done their job the US wouldnt be in this situation.
What exactly is the solution if you think Trump is handling it so badly? How is he supposed to clean up his predecessors mess?Hang on no-one has suggested giving Obama, the Bushes or Clinton a free ride. This is all about how the incumbent President is dealing with a highly important issue. Once again you're picking an argument that isn't there instead of actually critiquing Trump's actions and words.
Every President (Prime Minister, whatever) has always had to deal with the shit pie left behind by his predecessor but what's done is done and it is how the incumbent deals with things that is of immediate importance. You can moan about Trump being held up to a different moral code or level of media intrusion all you want but that cannot paper over how he behaves in office. Deal with that before dealing with any unfairness.
BTW I'm sure that unfairness in politics is an oxymoron.
What's to critique????
Some country threatens to attack your country and kill your citizens and says that if they do he will fuck thier shit up like nobody has ever seen before. That's calling a space a spade. .. unless you think NK nuking the US would just lead to sanctions....Well NK is regularly threatening to attack or nuke the US or SK and the response is not always the same. So yeah critiquing is important and certainly more important than ignoring a President's actions or words in favour of critiquing past Presidents actions or words.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in North Korea:
@Catogrande said in North Korea:
@Duluth said in North Korea:
Also worth noting that Clinton said if NK developed a nuclear bomb:
"we would quickly and overwhelmingly retaliate. It would mean the end of their country as they know it"
Extreme language has often being used in relation to NK. It's a way of escalating from regular diplomacy without actually taking military action
Likely a stupid thing to have said but if we're looking at a comparison of stupidly inflammatory things Presidents have said, a good comparison would be to look at how many Clinton and Obama did in their 8 years each of Presidency and how many Trump has done in his 6 odd months.
However it is not a competition and has no real relevance, it is what is happening now that is important now.
Except one was talking developing weapons and the other was about actually using those weapons on the U.S
Some people are so desperate to find fault with Trump that when he states the truth and the obvious towards an enemy some get upset.The difference here being that you have taken my generalised comment and applied it to a specific case. At no point did I argue that Clinton's comment was sensible or even that it was better put across than Trump's.
-
@Catogrande said in North Korea:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in North Korea:
@Catogrande said in North Korea:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in North Korea:
The wailing about Trumps emotive language towards North Korea is bloody hilarious.
Because all the pussy footing aorund with appeasements has worked so bloody well hasnt it. Now a dictator nutjob regime has nukes capable of reaching the mainland US.... great job Clinton, Bu x2 2 and Obama.. stella job there guys. You really negotiated up a storm there! If by negotiated you mean bent over and dropped your pants to take one up the Hershey highway.
If Obama was this visionary leader, Nobel peace prize winner and great statesmen he night have actually done ... something (as opposed to talking reeeeeeeally slowly).
If there is a massive conflict, it wont be on Trumps shoulders, it will be the 5-6 presidents before him who had a policy of appeasement and head in the sand stupidity.
Oh boo fucking hoo.. Trump threatened NK, maybe if a few presidents before them had actually done their job the US wouldnt be in this situation.
What exactly is the solution if you think Trump is handling it so badly? How is he supposed to clean up his predecessors mess?Hang on no-one has suggested giving Obama, the Bushes or Clinton a free ride. This is all about how the incumbent President is dealing with a highly important issue. Once again you're picking an argument that isn't there instead of actually critiquing Trump's actions and words.
Every President (Prime Minister, whatever) has always had to deal with the shit pie left behind by his predecessor but what's done is done and it is how the incumbent deals with things that is of immediate importance. You can moan about Trump being held up to a different moral code or level of media intrusion all you want but that cannot paper over how he behaves in office. Deal with that before dealing with any unfairness.
BTW I'm sure that unfairness in politics is an oxymoron.
What's to critique????
Some country threatens to attack your country and kill your citizens and says that if they do he will fuck thier shit up like nobody has ever seen before. That's calling a space a spade. .. unless you think NK nuking the US would just lead to sanctions....Well NK is regularly threatening to attack or nuke the US or SK and the response is not always the same. So yeah critiquing is important and certainly more important than ignoring a President's actions or words in favour of critiquing past Presidents actions or words.
Nice dodge. But what do you think would happen if NK nujes the US? It is pretty bloody obvious what would happen. Trump spoke the truth.
I must admit to chuckling about this sort of scenario if applied to WW2 . Hitler says he is going to attack the UK. Chamberlain says that if he does the UK will fuck Hitlers shit up and people cry cause words hurt.... -
There's a big difference to getting your 'big stick' ready or demonstrating a show of force and publicly goading an opponent.
Much like the ABs camp may be doing this week. They will be saying internally 'we hate these fuckers and this is our plan to put them away' while publicly not goading them into a fury.
Both of these leaders have shown they are bullshit artists that react impulsively to threats. Yelling at each other over the fence is not going to help matters one bit.
Now I have no problem if Trump decides that the NK regime needs to be dealt with but FFS come up with a proper plan don't just escalate and threaten.
-
@Crucial said in North Korea:
There's a big difference to getting your 'big stick' ready or demonstrating a show of force and publicly goading an opponent.
Much like the ABs camp may be doing this week. They will be saying internally 'we hate these fuckers and this is our plan to put them away' while publicly not goading them into a fury.
Both of these leaders have shown they are bullshit artists that react impulsively to threats. Yelling at each other over the fence is not going to help matters one bit.
Now I have no problem if Trump decides that the NK regime needs to be dealt with but FFS come up with a proper plan don't just escalate and threaten.
Goading? That isn't goading.. it is stating the bloody obvious! Attack my country and I will attack yours savagely.. is not goading. And it isn't escalating either. I am all in favour of calling politicians out over threats and broken red lines. Obama made that horrendous mistake over the red line in Syria, Clinton made a similar fuck up when threatening to attack if NK got nukes. Both were clearly grandstanding and were never going to back it up.
Trump means every word he said, and everyone with a brain knows it.. and they know he is right and correct in his threat.
Anyone here prepared to say that if NK nukes the US then the US wont unleash hell on NK.. anyone? I am glad a leader had the honesty to just answer a straight question with a straight and honest answer that everyone knew the answer to anyway.
And how do you know they dont have plans? You do know that answering a question doesn't mean they have no plans?
And so I am sure they are not 'just' threatening. I am fascinated to know what thought process you went through to decide that they had no plan and were just escalating and threatening.
And how does the first ever unanimous security council vote on tougher NK sanctions figure into your theory that they have no plan? Was that just a random act that happened to come up at a security council session?
North Korea