It's today then ... (Trump thread)

[ianmingo]

Quote

1 minute ago, Devon Malcolm said:

You must have asked this approximate question about 26 times in a row in this thread now. We get it. You don't get it.

 

What is the problem Devon?

Big Jag brings a lot to this conversation. He may just be worried and wants to know what is going to happen. We can't all be like you (a person who says "drugs" are there interests) Grow up.

Big Jag has made some very good points in this thread.

For me Trump is 100% correct. North Korea need to be put in their place.

I would put troop son the ground asap and start air strikes on the nuclear silos asap.

The sooner we get the mad man out the better.

[Sergio Mendacious]

6 minutes ago, ianmingo said:

For me Trump is 100% correct. North Korea need to be put in their place.

I would put troop son the ground asap and start air strikes on the nuclear silos asap.

The sooner we get the mad man out the better.

Well, it's a position I've seen from people before, and I thought they were mugs too. The downsides of getting into a shooting war with North Korea are more apparent than in practically any other situation — he has Seoul as a hostage to his whims here, he could smash the shit out of the Southern capital with conventional weapons, no need to go for chemical/bio/nuclear. Also, what is the reaction expected to be from the Chinese and Russians, both of whom share a border with NK? I think you may have confused going to war in the real world with a spirited go on Command and Conquer.

[BigJag]

Errrmmm. NK clearly do need to be kept under check. Let's just take solace that Trump is just a noisy braggart. Who is impotent and powerless to actually follow through with his ridiculous threats. He is? Isn't he?

Edited September 23, 2017 by BigJag

[PunkStep]

8 hours ago, BigJag said:

Let's just take solace that Trump is just a noisy braggart. Who is impotent and powerless to actually follow through with his ridiculous threats. He is? Isn't he?

Who are the only nation to have used an atomic bomb in warfare to date?

[BigJag]

I know. Scary thought. What I'm trying to understand is. Does he have the authority to order such a monumentally dangerous action. It may have been discussed earlier. A previous administration during the cold war had to lie to the president. In order to avert a knee jerk nuclear strike.

[WyattSheepMask]

From what I understand, and someone please correct if I'm wrong, is that yes he, as Commander in Cheif, does have the authority to order such an action to launch US Nuclear weapons from wherever they're station on the planet. He'll have military advisors briefing him on what the best action might be, but ultimately he gives the go ahead. Similarly, Theresa May has the authority to launch any nuclear weapons that they UK have. Again, she's got a team of advisors, but it is her call to make. That's one of the things that seemingly went against Corbyn in the Election. People kept pushing for an answer on whether or not he would launch/approve the use of nuclear weapons if needed. He never gave a clear answer as to whether he would or not, but he (as PM) would have been the one with the authority to do so

[CavemanLynn]

Coming back to this thread after a while, it's a strange mix of refreshing and disheartening to see people here advocating dropping Big Boy on North Korea - refreshing because it's good to see this place isn't so much of a bubble, but disheartening that any nuclear military action is deemed acceptable. I always loved the irony/appropriateness of the acronym of Mutually Assured Destruction. It's a concept that's so backward and blinkered, it amazes me it's even kept on the table, let alone considered to be a defining metric of someone's electability.

The UK and US has troops EVERYWHERE. They're the dominant military world power backed up by over a century of allies and treaties. Aside from one devastating military strike to instigate whatever conflict, no other nation would stand a chance. Fifteen years after the film,Team America World Police still rings true.

There's no doubt in my mind that the reason for the current intent of the West on deposing Kim Jong Un is so they have a solid military foothold right at China's door and pincer Russia. The same as Iraq, when decades of destabilisation came to a head, and the situation we're currently seeing between Syria and Iran under the veil of religious ideology.

Personally, my libertarian side says there is absolutely no reason why any nation should prevent another nation's nuclear technological development. I'm too cynical to assume that our media's portrayals of, for example, Assad and Un as madmen is unbiased. There are a ton of agendas at play. But I don't think any politician is legitimately ignorant enough to hit the button. It'll be the usual decades of posturing in pursuit of trade deals and treaties that the majority of the seven billion people on this planet couldn't give a shit about.

Edited September 24, 2017 by CavemanLynn

[Briefcase]

From a North Korea perspective I think a lot of people underestimate Kim Jong Un and are almost stereotyping him as a silly nutty bad guy with power (some could be true) but do think he has played Trump here and knows the right buttons to push (no pun intended). 

I do think North Korea are doing this to either sell missles to other countries to gain cash or to put themselves in a position of defence where if anyone of South Korea/China/US attack they could launch a missile and cause lots of issues. If I have read right then North Korea have very little to lose so this gives them options to defend themselves (albeit with a 'if you attack us we got missiles aimed towards such and such' and the capability to sell these missiles onto other countries/groups who might have there own agenda for wanting them (e.g. ISIS). 

Trump does himself no favours with his bullish destroy talk as this plays into the hands of North Korea and almost gives them reason (to there people at least) to carry on.

I will need to find the article I read recently but it made some good points how  Kim Jong Un is playing a good game here. Interesting read which I think I have interpreted right. 

[BigJag]

 

[Carbomb]

One thing I find disturbing and fascinating is how real life seems to be reflecting art in the case of Kim Jong-In. Jong-Il had three sons, and their lives have panned out almost exactly like the Corleone brothers. 

Jong-Nam was the oldest and the one who was supposed to be leader, but he made a lot of stupid decisions, ended up being disinherited, and has recently been assassinated, like Sonny.

Jong-Chol is Fredo, passed over for leadership because he was considered by his father to be "weak and effeminate".

Jong-Un is Michael - nobody ever once expected he would ever be leader, and now that he is he's turned out to be terrifyingly effective, ruthless and murderous when dealing with his enemies.

 

As for "dealing with" North Korea, it's interesting how we still think we have the right and the qualifications to police the world militarily. Between corruption and sheer incompetence, should anyone trust our track record, or the US'? Vietnam's still suffering from birth defects caused by the Agent Orange sprayed into their ecosystems by the US military, the Korean peninsula has been divided since the 50s, the UK's policy of Divide & Rule, partitioning every fucking colony we left (India/Pakistan, Ireland, half of Africa, Cyprus) has seen a lot of these countries going through needless violence, Spain was ruled by a fascist cunt for nearly 50 years during which we did nothing about it (for all the West's protestations of being the "champions of democracy"), most of South America and Africa had its democratic governments overthrown by CIA-engineered military coups which put fascist dictators in power, the Chagos Islanders have been kicked out of their homes to make way for a US air-base with no legal remedy, we ignored the genocides committed by Turkey, Syria, Iran and Iraq against the Kurds, Palestine and Israel are constantly at each other's throats, Syria's halfway fucked, Libya's completely fucked, the Iraq invasion led to the birth of IS, and the Taliban have been regaining ground in Afghanistan. 

Something tells me we're doing it wrong.

Edited September 25, 2017 by Carbomb

[Pinc]

The stronger-than-expected performance of the AfD in the German election is a worrying development, after earlier signs that Trump's toxic reputation outside of the US may have stemmed the tide of nationalist populism in Europe.

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Carbomb said:

As for "dealing with" North Korea, it's interesting how we still think we have the right and the qualifications to police the world militarily.

I understand what you're saying, but I'd rather we try to intervene at the risk of getting it wrong than just look the other way.

Scale it down to witnessing some bloke smacking his girlfriend around and ask yourself if you'd have the "right" to police their relationship. I think a lot of people would favour trying to butt in, even with no guarantee of success.

I do agree that care needs to be taken in our approach, but not to the extent of turning up our headphones and minding our own business.

[BigJag]

How has this become "WE". Trump is going off on one all by himself. I don't even believe that his administration would support his actions. There has to be more protocols in place than him having unilateral decision making rights. If not. Then his authority needs to be revoked.

As regards to policing the world and keeping NK in check. Then isn't that the job of the UN? We know that the when it suits various governments. They will forget that they are in the UN and team up to do their own thing. However in this case. Surely there needs to be a consensus to ignore the shouty idiot and carry on without the US. Thus making decisions that are reasoned and not epoch inducing.

[BomberPat]

That we're seriously having to discuss the prospect of nuclear war for the first time since I was a kid is fucking terrifying. That it's happening at the same time as Trump is in the White House, as the far-right are entering the Reichstag and on the rise across Eastern Europe, and the UK is marching into blinkered protectionism is even worse. Someone said it last year, but every day it feels more and more like we're living through the chapter of a history book entitled "Factors Leading To....".

Thing is, this happens every few years - North Korea throw their weight around, America rise to it, they get a slap on the wrist, cooler heads prevail. That's the game. But there's a distinct shortage of cooler heads in Trump's regime, and I honestly believe that, without the checks and measures provided by the constitution, and by the American political system, Donald Trump would be just as bad as any North Korean dictator if he could get away with it.

 

The whole thing around Trump going after NFL players refusing to stand for the national anthem is pissing me off no end, too. It's not just that the President of the United States is still banging on about TV ratings, it's not just that he (like so many of his followers, and so many who'll yell "FREEDOM OF SPEECH~!" as their first line of defence when called out on their bullshit) don't understand that the rights, freedoms and liberties their country allegedly stands for include the right not to blindly salute the flag, it's not just that the US's flag fetishism is only ever a hop, skip and a jump from totalitarianism anyway, it's not even that Trump will call a protesting black NFL player a "son of a bitch" while declaring that white supremacists and actual Nazis are "very good people", it's that it's become all about Trump.

When Kaepernick first took the knee and refused to stand for the anthem, it was in protest at the oppression of people of colour in the United States. Now, all the coverage would have you believe it's in protest against the Trump presidency. It's not just that Trump is (actively or passively) a supporter and promoter of the white supremacist cause, he's also made himself the perfect scapegoat for more moderate Republicans and white guilt Liberals alike. America has always been too reluctant, or too afraid, to confront its own history - and now, so long as they can point to Donald Trump as if he's the problem, and all this started with him, it means they don't have to talk about the ongoing legacy of slavery, about entrenched inequality, about police brutality, about institutional racism, they can just act like this all started with Trump, and it'll all go away with Trump. But unless people deal with the underlying issues that would even allow the likes of Donald Trump to get anywhere near the presidency, nothing will ever change, things will only get worse. Treating Donald Trump like a freak anomaly, or like he's the whole problem on his own, is ignorant at best, dangerous at worst.

[Carbomb]

19 minutes ago, Uncle Zeb said:

I understand what you're saying, but I'd rather we try to intervene at the risk of getting it wrong than just look the other way.

Scale it down to witnessing some bloke smacking his girlfriend around and ask yourself if you'd have the "right" to police their relationship. I think a lot of people would favour trying to butt in, even with no guarantee of success.

I do agree that care needs to be taken in our approach, but not to the extent of turning up our headphones and minding our own business.

To further your analogy, the West getting involved would be like a bunch of blokes who have a history of having harems of women they've smacked around, many of whom they're still messing with in some way or another (usually using their financial clout) years after letting them go, intervening when seeing the local cracked-out cunt that everyone hates getting aggressive and starting on everyone (but not actually having done anything yet). Especially when one of the women the cunt is threatening has already been in hospital from being nuked by one of said interveners, and especially when said interveners have been to several other blokes' houses, beaten up and kicked them out, and then left the remaining family at the mercy of even bigger cunts.

There are two reasons why we shouldn't get involved: 

1. Care needs to be taken in our approach, but given that the current global political establishment has shown neither remorse or reflection for the way it's done things so far, I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that any care would be taken, and that a Western incursion into NK would end up any different to previous ones elsewhere. Definition of madness right there.

2. China is not to be ignored. It's slightly less powerful than the US, but not enough that the West can just go marching into a country on its doorstep, within its sphere of influence. And bear in mind that, minor spats aside, China and Russia are pretty much allies now - that is not an alliance to be fucked with. 

 

Edited September 25, 2017 by Carbomb