-
@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? -
@Baron-Silas-Greenback You accuse me of dodging and then bring in Chamberlain?
I suggested that it is more important to critique a current President's actions and words rather than bleat on about what someone else did or didn't do years ago. How far do you want to go back? Clinton? Nixon? Lincoln? Maybe George III?
-
So saying 'I'm bigger than you are' to someone that thinks he is the biggest person going is not goading him to prove it?
I'd rather the US quietly worked out how they were going to crush NK (hopefully without nukes) and went about it without pushing them to shoot first so there is an excuse. -
@Catogrande said in North Korea:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback You accuse me of dodging and then bring in Chamberlain?
I suggested that it is more important to critique a current President's actions and words rather than bleat on about what someone else did or didn't do years ago. How far do you want to go back? Clinton? Nixon? Lincoln? Maybe George III?
I dont care much about any of those, Duluth bought it up and you made a facile point about it which I commented on.
Past US presidents are relevant to the current situation, that is obvious. But I guess if people are fixated on Trump, history is irrelevant .. it is all Trumps fault. Context is overrated to those types. -
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in North Korea:
@Catogrande said in North Korea:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback You accuse me of dodging and then bring in Chamberlain?
I suggested that it is more important to critique a current President's actions and words rather than bleat on about what someone else did or didn't do years ago. How far do you want to go back? Clinton? Nixon? Lincoln? Maybe George III?
I dont care much about any of those, Duluth bought it up and you made a facile point about it which I commented on.
Past US presidents are relevant to the current situation, that is obvious. But I guess if people are fixated on Trump, history is irrelevant .. it is all Trumps fault. Context is overrated to those types.No. We are commenting on current actions. Those actions belong to Trump. Saying 'but someone else did this too' has no relevance to what Trump said unless those historical actions were given a universal thumbs up and Trump is being treated differently.
-
@Crucial said in North Korea:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in North Korea:
@Catogrande said in North Korea:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback You accuse me of dodging and then bring in Chamberlain?
I suggested that it is more important to critique a current President's actions and words rather than bleat on about what someone else did or didn't do years ago. How far do you want to go back? Clinton? Nixon? Lincoln? Maybe George III?
I dont care much about any of those, Duluth bought it up and you made a facile point about it which I commented on.
Past US presidents are relevant to the current situation, that is obvious. But I guess if people are fixated on Trump, history is irrelevant .. it is all Trumps fault. Context is overrated to those types.No. We are commenting on current actions. Those actions belong to Trump. Saying 'but someone else did this too' has no relevance to what Trump said unless those historical actions were given a universal thumbs up and Trump is being treated differently.
Of course it is relevant to the current situation, this situation didnt manifest out of thin air. It has been decades in the making. The actions of all the major players over the last 40 years is relevant, and the comments and actions they have taken. To just ignore them because it suits the anti Trump narrative is bullshit. And I don't care how the previous comments were judged by the media, that isn't the point of discussing them, the point in discussing them is the effect they had (or didn't have) in general.
You can speak on current actions, and ignore history, but dont try and force that narrow view on others.NK was put in the 'axis of evil'... did they bomb Seoul in response after that 'goading'? No? mmmmm maybe that might be interesting to note when judging behavior.
-
@Catogrande said in North Korea:
Likely a stupid thing to have said but if we're looking at a comparison of stupidly inflammatory things Presidents have said
Hmmm. That wasn’t my point in raising the Clinton’s statement.
My point was that this type of language isn’t unusual in relation to NK. It has been a planned tactic in the past when NK escalates and does not respond to normal diplomacy.
-
I’ve settled on a less exciting storyline than most..
I see parallels with Clinton running his mouth while Albright kept diplomatic chatter going. That’s similar roles to Trump and Tillerson IMO
-
@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?Why do you so consistently characterise people who have differing opinions to your own as wailing, shouting, crying etc? It's quite strange.
Trump's language is inflammatory, in a situation where many people think that isn't the best approach, that's all.
Secondly, in several of your posts you've said that trump was saying that if north Korea nuked the states they'd get nuked to shit, which is obvious. That is obvious, but it is not what trump said. What he said was, threaten us again, and we will nuke you. Which is really quite different. Taken literally it means a nuclear pre-emptive attack by the US if Kim opens his mouth. That's an extraordinary call, with all the massive civilian casualties to north Korea, definitely south Korea, and probably Japan, that it implies.
Most of the west assume he doesn't mean what he says, but does Korea? And if not, what does this lead to?
The topic under discussion was trump's behaviour in this situation. As others have said, talking about past presidents is irrelevant to that topic. He is in this situation now, and his behaviour matters. The 'how we got to this point' is an interesting and valid topic of discussion itself, but it's a separate one.
North Korea