Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II
Comments
-
But that is my point. Just because it is nuclear does not in of itself make the order unlawful. The US deems nuclear as a viable military weapon, the same as a air raid or ground troops.
On what basis could a general refuse the order to launch a nuclear attack? They have already reconciled their own moral standing at this point otherwise they would not have allowed themselves to be in a position to have to make that decision. I am sure there are cases of military personnel who refused to take on that responsibility.
Not trying to get into a discussion about the legality of it or not. We seen from Iraq etc that the US are quite capable of making stuff up to suit their agenda. The point I was referring to was that a poster made the point that the generals might baulk at the order. I was saying that there is simply no way that that is possible. They are trained to carry out the order, within specific protocols. A morality check is not one of them.
Picture this scenario. NK launches, what is believed, to be a nuclear armed warhead at Guam. Do you think the generals are going to enter into moral debates about what to do next? Maybe they will convene a UN council? Trump has already stated they are willing to launch fire and fury.0 -
But, equally, just because the US considers that the use of nuclear weapons can be lawful, it doesn't follow that every order to use nuclear weapons is lawful.But that is my point. Just because it is nuclear does not in of itself make the order unlawful. The US deems nuclear as a viable military weapon, the same as a air raid or ground troops.
The orders given by Lt Calley (to kill the noncombatant population of a village suspected of harbouring militants) were found to be unlawful. Obviously, they would still have been unlawful if he had ordered the dropping of a nuclear bomb on the village.
OK, that's a fanciful example, but it makes the point that an order involving nuclear weapons can certainly be unlawful. If Trump ordered tactical nuclear weapons to be deployed against a DPRK military installation, that would be one thing. If he ordered a massive nuclear strike aimed at obliterating the five largest cities in North Korea that would be another, since that would clearly be an attack principally targetting noncombatants, which is illegal.
So, we'd need to see what order Trump is issuing.0 -
Remember when Trump and his supporters told us that Hillary's foreign policies would start world war 3 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-377667860
-
A poster on the Journal said (roughly) - Well if Clinton was in the White House we would all be dead by now anyway. Incredible really...0
-
But that is my point. Just because it is nuclear does not in of itself make the order unlawful. The US deems nuclear as a viable military weapon, the same as a air raid or ground troops.
On what basis could a general refuse the order to launch a nuclear attack? They have already reconciled their own moral standing at this point otherwise they would not have allowed themselves to be in a position to have to make that decision. I am sure there are cases of military personnel who refused to take on that responsibility.
Not trying to get into a discussion about the legality of it or not. We seen from Iraq etc that the US are quite capable of making stuff up to suit their agenda. The point I was referring to was that a poster made the point that the generals might baulk at the order. I was saying that there is simply no way that that is possible. They are trained to carry out the order, within specific protocols. A morality check is not one of them.
Picture this scenario. NK launches, what is believed, to be a nuclear armed warhead at Guam. Do you think the generals are going to enter into moral debates about what to do next? Maybe they will convene a UN council? Trump has already stated they are willing to launch fire and fury.
Inform NK publicly at UN that the US will operate a strike-down policy BUT should one or more of its threatened 1st strike nuclear or other missile launches reach/hit US territory there would be an appropriate and measured response against the NK [aggressor] nations launch capabilities and that until such a hit takes place, the US will not launch any form of military action against the NK Nation. That will put the ball firmly into Kim Jong-Un's court where the messenger delivering the note will be his representative at the UN. The US generals won't shoot without a POTUS order. They see the bigger picture unlike their apparently flaky president. His answer to Kim's threat has, as usual, enlargement words included - he can't resist his personal way of "bigging" messages up.
United Nations Security Council resolution 702, adopted without a vote on 8 August 1991, after examining separately the applications of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) and the Republic of Korea (South Korea) for membership in the United Nations, the Council recommended to the General Assembly that North Korea and South Korea be admitted.
On 17 September 1991, the General Assembly admitted both countries under Resolution 46/1.[1]0 -
Just saw there was another special election yesterday in Iowa, where Trump won by 10%. In this particular district where the election was, Trump won by 22%.
Phil Miller, the democrat running, won by nearly 10%.
This is why we've seen republicans in Congress beginning to try and wrestle themselves free of Trump association lately.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 15411
Just saw there was another special election yesterday in Iowa, where Trump won by 10%. In this particular district where the election was, Trump won by 22%.
Phil Miller, the democrat running, won by nearly 10%.
This is why we've seen republicans in Congress beginning to try and wrestle themselves free of Trump association lately.
That was a democrat seat already though.. They haven't flipped any seats yet in any of the special elections thus far.0 -
You claimed there were no circumstances that the military could refuse an order; the answer is that they can and should as an unlawful order is not a valid defense against charges of war crimes:
Can they refuse on the basis the President is a nincompoop suffering from early onset dementia?0 -
No.wonderfullife wrote: »Can they refuse on the basis the President is a nincompoop suffering from early onset dementia?
U.S. military law only allows the refusal of an unlawful order, not a flawed or unethical one. A member can be court-martialled for disobeying a legal order, regardless of whether the member believed the order to be unlawful.
The "Commander in Chief" model, and the deification of this model is the biggest flaw in the US system. The President has sole authority to authorise the firing of the weapons. His secretary of defence legally issues the order, but if he refuses to, the president can fire him and appoint someone who will give the order.
So in effect if Trump decides to drop a nuke, you have to hope that peoples' conscience kicks in and a coup is staged where everyone refuses to comply with the President. You would hope that any individual would value millions of innocent lives above their military career, but I wouldn't count on that.
That's how ridiculous and precarious the US political system is.0 -
"I think what the president was doing was sending a strong message to North Korea in language that Kim Jong Un would understand, because he doesn’t seem to understand diplomatic language," Tillerson said
TBF, I don't think Trump understands diplomatic language either.
Its a little scary when two egomaniacal idiots are playing such a dangerous game.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Tillerson is trying to play down the language used by Trump, saying that war is not imminent and that trump was merely using words that Kim would understand.
BS. Trump was using language that made himself feel big and strong. Fire and Fury. No wait Fire and Fury and Power. For a man that obviously understands the power of social media he seems to think he can say something to one group of people and that no one else will pay any heed.
So make such a threat, the biggest the world has ever seen, straight away creating a comparison to the atomic bombs, and then they seem bemused when US and world gets a little bit nervy about it all.
It is that level of unpredictability, continually changing positions that leads to the confusion. Remember Trump has already said that NK had to stop testing missiles or else. I think NK have since tested two missiles.
He got the UN resolution through 15-0. A major victory and shows China are on board. All the needed to do was sit back and wait for NK to make a move. But as soon as Kim made another rash and clearly internally focused threat, he gets all bully boy and threatens nuclear war.0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,119 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 23684
Do they not have a no-first strike policy though?
So as it's unclear that NK has an actual nuclear capability that they can stick inside a missile then the generals would be fully justified in ignoring an order to fire. Certainly they shouldn't be firing anything first.0 -
Do they not have a no-first strike policy though?
So as it's unclear that NK has an actual nuclear capability that they can stick inside a missile then the generals would be fully justified in ignoring an order to fire. Certainly they shouldn't be firing anything first.
But that becomes really tricky. Who is to say that the next 'test' launch is not actually a nuclear armed armed missile aimed at the US or its allies? Or that some trigger happy or even hapless soldier on the border fires a mortar etc towards SK?
Should the US wait around to find out what the final outcome is or retaliate immediately?
It all sounds great in the calm of the hypothetical, but in those minutes after a launch, with everyone already on high alert mistakes can be made.
Look at how many 'friendly-fire' instances we see. Yet we are told there are systems in place to avoid them and surely no soldier could morally do that.
That is the problem with using the type of tactics that Trump is engaging in. It riles everyone up, gets people so het up that even the smallest thing can be assigned a direct threat and things escalate quickly from there.0 -
Things are heating up on the Russia probe....
FBI agents raided the Alexandria home of President Trump’s former campaign chairman late last month, using a search warrant to seize documents and other materials, according to people familiar with the special counsel investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-conducted-predawn-raid-of-former-trump-campaign-chairman-manaforts-home/2017/08/09/5879fa9c-7c45-11e7-9d08-b79f191668ed_story.html?utm_term=.ac5cb901902d0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »I think the point of the Nuremburg reference is that "following orders" is no defence if the orders themselves are illegal.
And, for what it's worth, the US Code of Military Justice say exactly the same thing. Under US law, a serviceman is not only entitled but obliged to refuse to comply with an illegal order.
"Would Trump's order be illegal?" is a question that can't be answered without knowing exactly what order Trump is giving, and in what circumstances. And even then it's a question that may not have a clear answer, since there are plenty of opinions about the legality of the use of weapons of mass destruction, the legality of targetting noncombatants, etc, etc., but not so much hard law.
There is a little-known, but very important caveat in the US military justice system. The order must be known to be unlawful, and it is explicitly written that all orders have a presumption of lawfulness. If there is ambiguity, it is expected that a serviceman will follow the order, and he is protected. Only if the order is "known to be unlawful or that a person of reasonable sense and understanding would have known the order to be unlawful" is it expected that an order will be refused.
Taking that to the Nuremberg comparison, there is a very significant difference between "let's invade this country which has not threatened us" and "let's attack a country which has never agreed to peace with us and is, by the way, repeatedly threatening to nuke our cities"0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,119 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 23684
But that becomes really tricky. Who is to say that the next 'test' launch is not actually a nuclear armed armed missile aimed at the US or its allies? Or that some trigger happy or even hapless soldier on the border fires a mortar etc towards SK?
Should the US wait around to find out what the final outcome is or retaliate immediately?
It all sounds great in the calm of the hypothetical, but in those minutes after a launch, with everyone already on high alert mistakes can be made.
Look at how many 'friendly-fire' instances we see. Yet we are told there are systems in place to avoid them and surely no soldier could morally do that.
That is the problem with using the type of tactics that Trump is engaging in. It riles everyone up, gets people so het up that even the smallest thing can be assigned a direct threat and things escalate quickly from there.
I guess the best defence against Trump ordering a launch is to not tell him about anything happening or coming out of NK. The military has control of that direction of information flow so as long as nobody tells him that anything has been launched he can't get carried away and order a counter attack on something that they are not actually sure about yet.0 -
Captain_Crash wrote: »Things are heating up on the Russia probe....
FBI agents raided the Alexandria home of President Trump’s former campaign chairman late last month, using a search warrant to seize documents and other materials, according to people familiar with the special counsel investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-conducted-predawn-raid-of-former-trump-campaign-chairman-manaforts-home/2017/08/09/5879fa9c-7c45-11e7-9d08-b79f191668ed_story.html?utm_term=.ac5cb901902d
Need to show probable cause to execute a warrant so they have something solid on Manafort. It would be suicidal to execute the warrant and be left with egg on their face if they came up empty.
Should probably expect the "Manafort who? Never heard of him" type tweets coming out of the WH soon.0 -
I guess the best defence against Trump ordering a launch is to not tell him about anything happening or coming out of NK. The military has control of that direction of information flow so as long as nobody tells him that anything has been launched he can't get carried away and order a counter attack on something that they are not actually sure about yet.
But that is akin to a military coup. POTUS is commander in chief. He is the boss. You cannot have a situation whereby the military are making decisions over what is important and not.
Granted that puts the power in POTUS hands to decide but that is the position of POTUS.
Trump has been given the ultimate power by the voters if the US, we can't simply change the rules because we don't like him. Of course they could change the constitution but that is a major undertaking and more chance of the POTUS being removed from office than such a direction0 -
Advertisement
-
It seems Chuck Norris is endorsing Roy Moore for Jeff Sessions senate seat. Roy, the disgraced former Alabama chief justice who was kicked off the bench for declaring [amongst other things] that USSC judgements don't apply in Alabama said in April he was resigning from the bench to run for the seat and that he shared Don Trump's vision of America, though not as ambitious. He'lll start with Making America Good first, then Great.
https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiD5_2Z18rVAhWkIsAKHWYsB_8QqUMIKzAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtontimes.com%2Fnews%2F2017%2Faug%2F8%2Fchuck-norris-endorses-roy-moore-in-race-for-jeff-s%2F&usg=AFQjCNHHNKy8URy4rUPgsJa6wzHdZq7J8Q
https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj8t_L91MrVAhWLIsAKHc-BCH0QFggpMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.al.com%2Fnews%2Fmontgomery%2Findex.ssf%2F2017%2F04%2Froy_moore_announces_alabama_ch.html&usg=AFQjCNEGyHQ3amdCEgXko3qSSPZx19gATQ0 -
Now even though I didn't think Rex tillerson was a good pick for Secretary of State. I think it's amazing that he seems to be the one that is trying to pump the breaks on trumps mad ramblings about North Korea.0
-
I guess the best defence against Trump ordering a launch is to not tell him about anything happening or coming out of NK.
I mean....
https://news.vice.com/story/trump-folder-positive-news-white-house
Twice a day since the beginning of the Trump administration, a special folder is prepared for the president. The first document is prepared around 9:30 a.m. and the follow-up, around 4:30 p.m. Former Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and former Press Secretary Sean Spicer both wanted the privilege of delivering the 20-to-25-page packet to President Trump personally, White House sources say.
These sensitive papers, described to VICE News by three current and former White House officials, don’t contain top-secret intelligence or updates on legislative initiatives. Instead, the folders are filled with screenshots of positive cable news chyrons (those lower-third headlines and crawls), admiring tweets, transcripts of fawning TV interviews, praise-filled news stories, and sometimes just pictures of Trump on TV looking powerful.0 -
:eek: so basically twice a day Donald trump gets an ego boost for his fragile one ? This ladies and gentlemen is the president of the United States of America. Sweet baby Jesus and the donkey.I mean....
https://news.vice.com/story/trump-folder-positive-news-white-house
Twice a day since the beginning of the Trump administration, a special folder is prepared for the president. The first document is prepared around 9:30 a.m. and the follow-up, around 4:30 p.m. Former Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and former Press Secretary Sean Spicer both wanted the privilege of delivering the 20-to-25-page packet to President Trump personally, White House sources say.
These sensitive papers, described to VICE News by three current and former White House officials, don’t contain top-secret intelligence or updates on legislative initiatives. Instead, the folders are filled with screenshots of positive cable news chyrons (those lower-third headlines and crawls), admiring tweets, transcripts of fawning TV interviews, praise-filled news stories, and sometimes just pictures of Trump on TV looking powerful.0 -
Now even though I didn't think Rex tillerson was a good pick for Secretary of State. I think it's amazing that he seems to be the one that is trying to pump the breaks on trumps mad ramblings about North Korea.
Think Robert Mcnamara in the 60's, businessman to SecDef then totally unexpected hawk to dove on Vietnam.0 -
aloyisious wrote: »Think Robert Mcnamara in the 60's, businessman to SecDef then totally unexpected hawk to dove on Vietnam.
I think that tillersons comments may be a reaction to the presidents stupid comments. I don't think you can tell whether he's gone from a hawk to a dove though. I think it's because he and the UN ambassador nikki Haley are trying to do things the right way.0 -
Advertisement
-
So it turns out Paul Manafort's home was raided on July 26th by the FBI, after his Senate testimony.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-idUSKBN1AP1ORWASHINGTON (Reuters) - A July FBI raid on the Virginia home of President Donald Trump's former campaign manager, confirmed on Wednesday, showed that a federal investigation of possible ties between Trump's campaign and Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election was intensifying.
Federal Bureau of Investigation agents executed a search warrant at one of Paul Manafort's homes, his spokesman Jason Maloni said.
A source familiar with the work of Robert Mueller, the special counsel named by the Justice Department in May to investigate the Russia matter, said the raid was part of the first stage of his probe, focused on seeking evidence of financial crimes.
And literally just a few hours later... http://heavy.com/news/2017/08/trump-manafort-raid-fbi-director-mccabe-tweets-fired-removed/Just hours after an early morning raid by the FBI on the home of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, the president tweeted about why Attorney General Jeff Sessions hadn’t removed then-Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe from his position.
The tweets came at 9:48 and 9:52 a.m. on July 26. Just a few hours earlier, the FBI had executed a pre-dawn raid on Manafort’s D.C. home, serving a search warrant, the Washington Post first reported Wednesday. It is not known if Trump was aware of the raid on Manafort’s home when he sent the tweets, which you can see below:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/890207082926022656
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/890208319566229504
We all know for a fact that his campaign colluded with Russia since they confirmed it themselves, but it never gets an less astounding how lacking in nuance (and very worried) this guy is.0 -
So it turns out Paul Manafort's home was raided on July 26th by the FBI, after his Senate testimony.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-idUSKBN1AP1OR
And literally just a few hours later... http://heavy.com/news/2017/08/trump-manafort-raid-fbi-director-mccabe-tweets-fired-removed/
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/890207082926022656
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/890208319566229504
We all know for a fact that his campaign colluded with Russia since they confirmed it themselves, but it never gets an less astounding how lacking in nuance (and very worried) this guy is.
That's the big problem with trump. If you take previous administrations of both parties, because the president had had previous political experience they had that political nuance about how to do things. I think it will be his undoing in the end.0 -
-
Two different situations can arise here.Manic Moran wrote: »There is a little-known, but very important caveat in the US military justice system. The order must be known to be unlawful, and it is explicitly written that all orders have a presumption of lawfulness. If there is ambiguity, it is expected that a serviceman will follow the order, and he is protected. Only if the order is "known to be unlawful or that a person of reasonable sense and understanding would have known the order to be unlawful" is it expected that an order will be refused.
First, a soldier does something horrible and gets court-martialled for it. (Lt. Calley's case, for example.) He raises the "superior orders" defence. It's a good defence, unless it can be proved that he knew or must or should have known that the order was unlawful. So the unlawfulness has to be pretty obvious before the defence fails.
But, secondly, a soldier refuses to obey an order and is court-martialled for it. (The case we are considering here.) He raises a defence that the order was unlawful. That's a good defence if the order was, in fact, unlawful. he doesn't have to show that it was immediately obviously unlawful, that any passing idiot would know that it was unlawful, or anything of the kind; just that, correctly analysed, it was unlawful.
Sure; those are two different cases. But, just because an attack on a country is justified, it doesn't follow that any attack on the country is justified. For example, you may be fighting lawful war against Umbrellastan, but if you use chemical or biological weapons in that war, that's unlawful. So the question is not whether it would be lawful for the US to take military action against North Korea; it's whether it would be lawful for the US to take this particular miltary action, the one that the President has just ordered, against North Korea. And that's not a question that can be answered until we know what particular military action the President has ordered.Manic Moran wrote: »Taking that to the Nuremberg comparison, there is a very significant difference between "let's invade this country which has not threatened us" and "let's attack a country which has never agreed to peace with us and is, by the way, repeatedly threatening to nuke our cities"0 -
Now even though I didn't think Rex tillerson was a good pick for Secretary of State. I think it's amazing that he seems to be the one that is trying to pump the breaks on trumps mad ramblings about North Korea.
Rex is no dummy.
No earth left standing due to nuclear holocaust = no drilling agreements for Exxon when they eventually lift sanctions.
None of them give a monkeys about North Korea, I'm 100% certain Donald couldn't point out North Korea on a blank map of the world.0 -
Advertisement
-
Handy to have a war with North Korea during all these investigations wouldn't it0
-
Its also very convenient that NK have moved on so quickly on the nuclear warhead position in the last year or so.
I'm not saying they haven't, but this has WMD in Iraq written all over it. US needs to project its might, UN resolutions are great and all, but people are tired of the Iraq and Afghan wars and want something new and exciting to get behind.
Even Trump himself has stated that the CIA etc cannot be trusted due to the mess they made of the Iraq set up yet nobody is even questioning how viable these reports of nuclear readiness have come from.0 -
I don't think it's the same as WMD in Iraq.
In Iraq they were fabricating dossiers about secret WMD that Iraq denied they had. In this case, NK are test launching ICBMS, holding military parades and drills and displaying their weapons and as of this morning, announcing plans to actually attack a US base with 4 missiles in the middle of the month.
Trump is going on a solo run on this. With Iraq, it was the NEO Cons, Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld etc who planned the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
With NK, there is no need for a 'sexed up' dossier, or UN presentation showing a bus in the desert and claiming it's a mobile weapons lab. They just have to show one of the thousands of videos of Kim parading his military and threatening to attack the US and it's allies.0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,119 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 23684
I don't think it's the same as WMD in Iraq.
In Iraq they were fabricating dossiers about secret WMD that Iraq denied they had. In this case, NK are test launching ICBMS, holding military parades and drills and displaying their weapons and as of this morning, announcing plans to actually attack a US base with 4 missiles in the middle of the month.
Trump is going on a solo run on this. With Iraq, it was the NEO Cons, Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld etc who planned the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
With NK, there is no need for a 'sexed up' dossier, or UN presentation showing a bus in the desert and claiming it's a mobile weapons lab. They just have to show one of the thousands of videos of Kim parading his military and threatening to attack the US and it's allies.
Launch some warning shots across the bows.
At the moment they have not proved they can launch anything to hit a specific target, so they have announced that they will be aiming for a big bit of ocean sometime next week. Gives everyone time to get out of the way so they don't unintentionally cause an incident, and by launching 4 they only need one to make it to prove that they have some kind of targeting systems working.
Sounds like more of a move to get taken seriously in the countries with big sticks club, than an actual move wanting to start a war. Even Kim must know that he'll loose the proper fight without anyone else breaking into much of a sweat, but if they can show that they do actually have potential to throw their stick accurately then they get a better chance to negotiate other things.0 -
With NK, there is no need for a 'sexed up' dossier, or UN presentation showing a bus in the desert and claiming it's a mobile weapons lab. They just have to show one of the thousands of videos of Kim parading his military and threatening to attack the US and it's allies.
There's been that type of video every week for decades in NK whichever Kim was in charge, so it's not like anything has changed.
What we're witnessing now is the same cycle as always:
-NK threatens to do something crazy.
-USA threatens to respond to the crazy.
-NK says "ok we won't do the crazy thing if you can do X/Y/Z for us".
-USA "FINE!".
The difference, obviously, is that Trump is a sociopath who neither knows nor cares about the repercussions of leveling Pyongyang to the ground and is probably itching to do it.
Trump's ego is clearly hurt from the fact he's the most unpopular President in a long-time and he'll probably want to lash out in some way to prove he's not a lame duck or a joke.
Honestly, I would not be surprised whatsoever if nuclear weapons of some description are unilaterally and preemptively used against NK without warning or the consultation of Seoul and if it were to happen we're in for the biggest mess since 1939.0 -
I don't think it's the same as WMD in Iraq.
In Iraq they were fabricating dossiers about secret WMD that Iraq denied they had. In this case, NK are test launching ICBMS, holding military parades and drills and displaying their weapons and as of this morning, announcing plans to actually attack a US base with 4 missiles in the middle of the month.
Trump is going on a solo run on this. With Iraq, it was the NEO Cons, Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld etc who planned the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
With NK, there is no need for a 'sexed up' dossier, or UN presentation showing a bus in the desert and claiming it's a mobile weapons lab. They just have to show one of the thousands of videos of Kim parading his military and threatening to attack the US and it's allies.
Can't tell if this is you giving the Trump the go ahead to go all out nuclear war but the neocons of the past were worse because like they are neocons....0 -
Yeah, you're right, the difference is Trump but it's not the same as fabricating the case for war against Iraq. With NK, there has always been a case for war.wonderfullife wrote: »There's been that type of video every week for decades in NK whichever Kim was in charge, so it's not like anything has changed.
What we're witnessing now is the same cycle as always:
-NK threatens to do something crazy.
-USA threatens to respond to the crazy.
-NK says "ok we won't do the crazy thing if you can do X/Y/Z for us".
-USA "FINE!".
The difference, obviously, is that Trump is a sociopath who neither knows nor cares about the repercussions of leveling Pyongyang to the ground and is probably itching to do it.
Trump's ego is clearly hurt from the fact he's the most unpopular President in a long-time and he'll probably want to lash out in some way to prove he's not a lame duck or a joke.
Honestly, I would not be surprised whatsoever if nuclear weapons of some description are unilaterally and preemptively used against NK without warning or the consultation of Seoul and if it were to happen we're in for the biggest mess since 1939.
There has always been a more compelling case against war and part of that case has been the capability of NK to inflict heavy losses on it's neighbours. That case against war should be getting stronger now that they have demonstrated a capability to strike the US (still slightly speculative due to uncertainty about their delivery systems) A rational POTUS would consider opening up lines of dialogue to try and bring the Kims into the international community. They developed their weapons so that they would be taken seriously. Now that they have them, we should start taking them seriously and the best way to help the people and de-radicalise the Kims, is through dialogue and trade, not through threats and posturing about 'fire and fury the likes of which the world has never seen'
NK has always had a reactionary and unstable leader.but now, we also have an unstable POTUS who doesn't weight up the arguments and is likely to blunder his way into a conflict against NK without any grasp of the consequences or even any kind of coherent plan for how to deal with the immediate aftermath.0 -
There are definitely reasons to worry. Regardless of Tillerson's competence or lack of, the state department is woefully understaffed. Normally those are the folks you want to have in place for situations like this.0
-
listermint wrote: »Can't tell if this is you giving the Trump the go ahead to go all out nuclear war but the neocons of the past were worse because like they are neocons....
Absolutely not. Trump should absolutely not attack North Korea!
America claim to be the leaders of the world, they need to lead by de-escalating the conflict, not by throwing a tantrum and starting something they have no idea how to finish.
My point about the neo-cons was that at least they had a plan. It was a terrible plan that didn't work out at all (other than the vast wealth accumulated by their buddies in the weapons industry)
Trump has no idea what he's doing, he's blundering around reacting to things without thinking through what he is saying. He is dangerous because he's stupid and impulsive and unpredictable, and this is overturns the global diplomatic hegemony and can lead to a spiral of unintended consequences0 -
The people who voted Trump are getting what they deserve. Those who didn't vote because Sanders didn't get the nomination are just as guilty as those who voted Trump. The disenfranchised who had so many feature pieces written about them after Trump's victory who were looking for a "change" are as guilty as the KKK members.
From the outset it was clear Trump was a total ignoramus. Anybody with a modicum of intelligence could see this. His hypocrisy was spoken about and printed constantly.
Fake news or Russian collusion is not an excuse for voting for Trump. If you did you, were already looking for excuses. Trumpgret and brexit regret appear to be very real things which have affected both successful people and the disenfranchised. It is clear that people do little or no research despite having an infinite amount of information beneath their noses everyday and clearly confirmation bias is increasing rather than decreasing which is even more worrying.0 -
Advertisement
-
This is pretty much spot on. Pretty much everything, down to potentially looking for nuclear war just to feed his ego and try to boost poll numbers was predicted. So many things Trump supporters and voters were warned of that they ignored or tried to write of as nonsense/conspiracy/etc keep coming to pass, every single week it seems.The people who voted Trump are getting what they deserve. Those who didn't vote because Sanders didn't get the nomination are just as guilty as those who voted Trump. The disenfranchised who had so many feature pieces written about them after Trump's victory who were looking for a "change" are as guilty as the KKK members.
From the outset it was clear Trump was a total ignoramus. Anybody with a modicum of intelligence could see this. His hypocrisy was spoken about and printed constantly.
Fake news or Russian collusion is not an excuse for voting for Trump. If you did you, were already looking for excuses. Trumpgret and brexit regret appear to be very real things which have affected both successful people and the disenfranchised. It is clear that people do little or no research despite having an infinite amount of information beneath their noses everyday and clearly confirmation bias is increasing rather than decreasing which is even more worrying.
There is absolutely no "how were we to know?" excuse to be had here, it was all abundantly clear and pointed out repeatedly to them.0 -
So where does Trump go if N. Korea do target several strikes near Guam?
Near I can see he has two options.
1. Sacrifice millions of lives and start a war
2. Back down from his fire and fury stance with his tail between his legs. His bluff has been called and it looks like Tillerson will be able to stop him unleashing a war purely to defend his ego.
He painted himself into a corner here with his strong man rhetoric instead of the much more measured approach of Tillerson and Co. You can be sure that a lack of retaliation will be taken as a victory by Kim who will claim he forced the American bully to back down.0 -
So where does Trump go if N. Korea do target several strikes near Guam?
Near I can see he has two options.
1. Sacrifice millions of lives and start a war
2. Back down from his fire and fury stance with his tail between his legs. His bluff has been called and it looks like Tillerson will be able to stop him unleashing a war purely to defend his ego.
He painted himself into a corner here with his strong man rhetoric instead of the much more measured approach of Tillerson and Co. You can be sure that a lack of retaliation will be taken as a victory by Kim who will claim he forced the American bully to back down.
And this is exactly why the current situation is so dangerous. US had won the sanctions vote, NK had seemingly agreed that talks about talks could be held, but Trump reacted to the usual chest beating childish nonsense that Kim indulges in. Instead of simply saying that the whole of the UN were in agreement and promising tighter sanctions and putting pressure on China he lost the rag.
Now he is faced with hoping that NK have the sense to back down. But up to now NK have shown little sense so its a strange bet to make. If NK do push, US cannot be seen to have been forced to back down. A bully only has power through fear, once that is broken it is hard to regain.0 -
Those who didn't vote because Sanders didn't get the nomination are just as guilty as those who voted Trump.
This is actually a pretty terrible attitude towards democracy.
If the only available candidates are complete garbage then nobody should be obligated to vote for either of them.
To say in hindsight that one of the candidates was an utter disaster and if you didn't vote at all then you are somehow responsible is just complete nonsense.
Nobody knows how good or bad Hillary Clinton would have been.
Would she be better than Trump? I think so. I'm almost 100% sure of that.
Was she a good candidate for the Presidency outside of "better than Trump"? I don't think so.
You can't seriously propose that people should be shamed into voting for a terrible candidate just because the other candidate is more terrible.
Politicians should aspire to be good and to do good not just to be "less bad than the other guy".
It's the exact same argument Trump voters were using too. Vote for this buffoon because Hillary is worse. No.
People are quite right to not vote at all if both candidates are garbage.
"Didn't vote? Well this disaster is just as much your fault." No. Nonsense.
Maybe the Democrats should have put forward a better candidate and the USA wouldn't even be in this position right now.0 -
Silver Lynel wrote: »This is actually a pretty terrible attitude towards democracy.
If the only available candidates are complete garbage then nobody should be obligated to vote for either of them.
To say in hindsight that one of the candidates was an utter disaster and if you didn't vote at all then you are somehow responsible is just complete nonsense.
Nobody knows how good or bad Hillary Clinton would have been.
Would she be better than Trump? I think so. I'm almost 100% sure of that.
Was she a good candidate for the Presidency outside of "better than Trump"? I don't think so.
You can't seriously propose that people should be shamed into voting for a terrible candidate just because the other candidate is more terrible.
Politicians should aspire to be good and to do good not just to be "less bad than the other guy".
It's the exact same argument Trump voters were using too. Vote for this buffoon because Hillary is worse. No.
People are quite right to not vote at all if both candidates are garbage.
"Didn't vote? Well this disaster is just as much your fault." No. Nonsense.
Maybe the Democrats should have put forward a better candidate and the USA wouldn't even be in this position right now.
Maybe the Republicans should have put forward a better candidate too.
Yeah people who don't vote are part of the cause of this. Votes win elections. Though realistically only in a handful of states. They were given a choice. Saying no option is merely saying that they will go with what other people say.
No one is saying that they should not be allowed do this. Maybe they are still happy with their decision based on the choices but you can't deny the simple cause and effect from not voting.
Now in this case there are many causes. People not voting or voting for Trump. Democrats getting a candidate with so much history (as opposed to being that bad). Republican Party going with the nutty option (though they had several to be sure). Plus other causes rooted in education and society in the US.0 -
Maybe the Republicans should have put forward a better candidate too.
Yeah people who don't vote are part of the cause of this. Votes win elections. Though realistically only in a handful of states. They were given a choice. Saying no option is merely saying that they will go with what other people say.
No one is saying that they should not be allowed do this. Maybe they are still happy with their decision based on the choices but you can't deny the simple cause and effect from not voting.
Now in this case there are many causes. People not voting or voting for Trump. Democrats getting a candidate with so much history (as opposed to being that bad). Republican Party going with the nutty option (though they had several to be sure). Plus other causes rooted in education and society in the US.
America does need serious reform and re-evaluation of what it is and what it stands for. This especially needs to be done in terms of foreign policy. America is conducting very poor foreign policy that actually gives rise to the argument that the whole world should have a vote in a US election!
Most of the messes in the world today are at least partially to do with aggressive and poor US foreign policy. So-called US 'enemies' need to be negotiated with and new friendships formed in deals where there is mutual respect rather than bullying or forced regime change. US involvement in wars thousands of miles from it should cease and America should look after its people rather than causing hatred in the world.
ISIS, al Qaeda and the Taliban all arose out of initial US supposed for militant Islam and rose to prominence due to wars and regime change projects the US were deeply involved in. Trump needs to ask himself: would he run one of his own companies this way in his early years starting out? Would he have someone as unfriendly as Steve Bannon controlling him in his early days? Hopefully his answer would be no. Leading America is the same. Foreign policy needs to update from this old cold war era drivel and cold war 'enemies' like Iran, Cuba, and North Korea are not the ones killing innocent people in cities all over Europe or the ones who did 9/11. It is ISIS, etc. and with the aid of so-called 'friends' of America like Saudi Arabia.
Better candidates are only better if they have better policies. There is nothing to stop Trump from going from a very poor president to a very good one. A few small changes is all is needed. It is his choice: side with Steve Bannon's negativity and evil or do good by his people. Trump was elected by the American people and it is they he has to serve. No one elected Bannon or his negativity.0 -
Maybe the Republicans should have put forward a better candidate too.
Yes. Yes, they should have.
Is it fair to use hindsight to say to people who didn't vote "this is partially your fault"?
How could they possibly know?
If both candidates are bad then how can anyone properly judge exactly how bad they will be? The future is unknowable.
It comes across as an attempt to assign blame but if we are assigning blame at all then surely the both Republicans and Democrats have to take some responsibility for not putting forward good candidates that are actual politicians?
American voters voted for a celebrity because the alternatives were not appealing. There were/are problems within both parties and Donald Trump is a consequence of that.
Even if we want to go all in and say that the GOP was taken over by the KKK then we have to ask what the hell is going on at the DNC that they can't win more states than a group as unpopular as the KKK.
It seems some of these groups have a serious problem with taking responsibility.
Trump is already a disaster and things are only going to get worse but so many people are happy to just lay the blame somewhere else and wait until their "side" is back in power.
I blame the Republicans for allowing their candidate selection process to descend into an absolute circus and I blame the Democrats for failing to put forward a good enough candidate to counter Trump.
FFS you are a career politician and you are going up against Donald Trump and you still mange to lose? That's a disgrace.0 -
Half of Republicans would support postponing the 2020 presidential election if trump proposed it
Wow https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/10/in-a-new-poll-half-of-republicans-say-they-would-support-postponing-the-2020-election-if-trump-proposed-it/0 -
Silver Lynel wrote: »Yes. Yes, they should have.
Is it fair to use hindsight to say to people who didn't vote "this is partially your fault"?
How could they possibly know?
If both candidates are bad then how can anyone properly judge exactly how bad they will be? The future is unknowable.
It comes across as an attempt to assign blame but if we are assigning blame at all then surely the both Republicans and Democrats have to take some responsibility for not putting forward good candidates that are actual politicians?
American voters voted for a celebrity because the alternatives were not appealing. There were/are problems within both parties and Donald Trump is a consequence of that.
Even if we want to go all in and say that the GOP was taken over by the KKK then we have to ask what the hell is going on at the DNC that they can't win more states than a group as unpopular as the KKK.
It seems some of these groups have a serious problem with taking responsibility.
Trump is already a disaster and things are only going to get worse but so many people are happy to just lay the blame somewhere else and wait until their "side" is back in power.
I blame the Republicans for allowing their candidate selection process to descend into an absolute circus and I blame the Democrats for failing to put forward a good enough candidate to counter Trump.
FFS you are a career politician and you are going up against Donald Trump and you still mange to lose? That's a disgrace.
Donald Trump has been busily and loudly showing America exactly what kind of person he is for the last 50 years. Anyone who sat on their hands and didn't vote because 'both candidates are bad' is declaring themselves to be unbelievably, incomprehensibly ignorant.
Clinton was not a perfect candidate by any means but she's very experienced and very competent. If the U.S. was expecting The Perfect Candidate to show up and fix everything overnight, then I think they will be waiting a very long time.0 -
Advertisement
-
Silver Lynel wrote: »Yes. Yes, they should have.
Is it fair to use hindsight to say to people who didn't vote "this is partially your fault"?
How could they possibly know?
If both candidates are bad then how can anyone properly judge exactly how bad they will be? The future is unknowable.
It comes across as an attempt to assign blame but if we are assigning blame at all then surely the both Republicans and Democrats have to take some responsibility for not putting forward good candidates that are actual politicians?
American voters voted for a celebrity because the alternatives were not appealing. There were/are problems within both parties and Donald Trump is a consequence of that.
Even if we want to go all in and say that the GOP was taken over by the KKK then we have to ask what the hell is going on at the DNC that they can't win more states than a group as unpopular as the KKK.
It seems some of these groups have a serious problem with taking responsibility.
Trump is already a disaster and things are only going to get worse but so many people are happy to just lay the blame somewhere else and wait until their "side" is back in power.
I blame the Republicans for allowing their candidate selection process to descend into an absolute circus and I blame the Democrats for failing to put forward a good enough candidate to counter Trump.
FFS you are a career politician and you are going up against Donald Trump and you still mange to lose? That's a disgrace.
I agree. I feel that the candidates are a symptom of the state of America's policies and the parties. Traditionally, most Republican presidencies start off abysmally. Think Reagan and evil empire, Bush 2 and the Iraq war. Then they become a lot more moderate and do better in their second term. Reagan especially transformed himself from a very negative force to a very positive force and had to change a lot of his admin in term too. He saved his legacy and became a good president. Bush 2 was not what one would call a good president but his second term was a much more moderate and a mass improvement on his first. Trump's presidency has turned into a circus and is a joke but it does not have to remain like this. There are a lot of not nice people in his government and he has sacked or alienated others who are gone out of which means instability remains.
Trump's 1st 6 months has been abysmal. That does not mean that the next 3.5 years has to be. But he has to make a lot of changes and he has to admit he was wrong with some things. Moderate foreign policy is needed and things like better relations with Cuba and improved relations with Iran are needed. North Korea needs to be dealt with in diplomatic ways and constructive solutions to world crises are needed. People like Bannon should have no say whatsoever in foreign policy or policy directed towards minorities. Let him at something like transport improvement if he has to be there.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement