(08-10-2017, 02:31 PM)Millhouse Wrote: But if they would strike us with a nuke first we would be mad for nuking them? I think that could set a dangerous precedent by letting the world know that if you nuke us, we will not nuke back. Even Hillary has said a few times over the years she would use nukes as President if we were struck first.
I side with "yes" we would be mad.
It's not R or D or Russian or Korean or American for me.
That fact that we can destroy so much so quickly is madness.
To me.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
Quote:During an all-hands-on-deck moment, Trump is short on hands
08/09/17 10:57 AM
By Steve Benen Former Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) left Congress to join the Obama administration eight years ago, initially serving as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs. In 2012, Tauscher took on a new role, becoming Special Envoy for Strategic Stability and Missile Defense at the State Department.
This morning on Twitter, Tauscher raised an interesting point (translated slightly from Twitter abbreviations):
Quote:“Where is the Trump Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security? NO ONE has been nominated? Unheard of in 40 years. I should know.”
She’s referring, of course, to the job she used to have. And Tauscher’s correct: Donald Trump hasn’t even nominated someone to fill that post – which seems like an important oversight in light of the world’s newfound interest in arms control.
If this were an isolated incident, it might be easier to overlook, but the larger point is that the Trump administration hasn’t bothered to fill a wide variety of key posts that are suddenly quite relevant. There is, for example, currently no U.S. ambassador to South Korea.
The Washington Post maintains a helpful list tracking key Trump administration posts and their status, and perusing the database this morning, I found all kinds of relevant State Department offices awaiting a presidential nominee. Here are some of the more notable vacancies:
* Undersecretary for arms control and international security affairs
* Assistant secretary for intelligence and research
* Assistant secretary for arms control, verification, and compliance
* Assistant secretary for international security and nonproliferation affairs
* Assistant secretary for political-military affairs
* Assistant secretary for conflict and stabilization operations
* Assistant secretary for East Asian and Pacific affairs
* Special envoy for North Korea human rights issues
* Special representative of the president for nuclear non-proliferation
For each of these posts – and this is just a partial list of positions in the State Department – the Trump White House hasn’t even nominated anyone.
In other words, this isn’t a series of vacancies the president can credibly blame on “Democratic obstructionism.” No one has been confirmed to these positions because Trump hasn’t yet sent a nominee for these posts to the Senate for consideration.
What happens when an administration, facing a burgeoning crisis, has an all-hands-on-deck moment and the president finds himself short on hands?
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(08-10-2017, 06:41 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Which is why North Korea was so peaceful and had zero nuclear ambitions and threats until Trump took over as President. Right? All Trump's fault.
An understaffed diplomatic corps has a detrimental effect on preventing hostilities. That was what the tweet was about. Do you disagree with that?
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(08-10-2017, 06:44 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: An understaffed diplomatic corps has a detrimental effect on preventing hostilities. That was what the tweet was about. Do you disagree with that?
Yes, because Iran has been threatening to destroy us for what feels like decades now. A fully staffed diplomatic corps hasn't stopped NK from getting nukes, or launching nukes, or threatening to use nukes.
Irrational people are irrational. Words don't work with them, hence why they are irrational to begin with. Words only possibly make you feel better about yourself for having tried and pretending it made a difference. If words worked, they would no longer be irrational people.
Good luck with convincing the guy who came to power and purged a bunch of family members by shooting them in the head and burying them in shallow ditches, that he shouldn't be evil anymore. Didn't his wife go missing like year ago? Yeah, she's dead too.
(08-10-2017, 06:47 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Yes, because Iran has been threatening to destroy us for what feels like decades now. A fully staffed diplomatic corps hasn't stopped NK from getting nukes, or launching nukes, or threatening to use nukes.
Irrational people are irrational. Words don't work with them, hence why they are irrational to begin with. Words only possibly make you feel better about yourself for having tried and pretending it made a difference.
Diplomacy prevents threats from becoming actions. An understaffed diplomatic corps makes diplomacy more difficult. We often don't see what goes on behind the scenes, but what keeps foes like Iran and North Korea from actually making good on their threats are the diplomatic back channels utilized to prevent this from happening.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(08-10-2017, 06:51 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Diplomacy prevents threats from becoming actions. An understaffed diplomatic corps makes diplomacy more difficult. We often don't see what goes on behind the scenes, but what keeps foes like Iran and North Korea from actually making good on their threats are the diplomatic back channels utilized to prevent this from happening.
No, what kept Iran and North Korea from actually making good on their threats is the fact that North Korea didn't have missiles capable of reaching the US and Iran didn't have enriched uranium. Both of those has changed due to a failure in diplomacy and negotiations.
Don't get me wrong, having an understaffed diplomatic corps ISN'T good. You need them to deal with allies and other rational countries. That doesn't mean it would make a damn bit of difference on North Korea being crazy or not.
(08-10-2017, 06:47 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Yes, because Iran has been threatening to destroy us for what feels like decades now. A fully staffed diplomatic corps hasn't stopped NK from getting nukes, or launching nukes, or threatening to use nukes.
Irrational people are irrational. Words don't work with them, hence why they are irrational to begin with. Words only possibly make you feel better about yourself for having tried and pretending it made a difference. If words worked, they would no longer be irrational people.
Good luck with convincing the guy who came to power and purged a bunch of family members by shooting them in the head and burying them in shallow ditches, that he shouldn't be evil anymore. Didn't his wife go missing like year ago? Yeah, she's dead too.
This NK video was from over a year ago, after Obama had years to work with them, and with what I assume a fully staffed St. Dpt.
Now they have started an ICBM program with reported small enough warheads to fit. Diplomacy has failed, period, in preventing them to obtain nukes. And if since nothing can be done thru diplomacy with Fatboy, the only peaceful solution is to do nothing while they keep building and perfecting missile technology with more powerful nukes. And in a few short years, they would realistically have the capability of wiping us out. And if they do wipe us out or most of us, then we would have done the right thing by not doing anything before that though...
(08-09-2017, 01:31 PM)Dill Wrote: Every country, every situation, is different--especially when compared to NK. There is no "one way" to handle threats of verbal attacks.
We need to not think that we can control everything, that "losing China," or "losing Korea" is always some administration's fault.
There is nothing the US could have done to prevent the creation of NK, short of continuing WWII against our ally, the Soviet Union. Serious diplomacy over the last 30 years MIGHT have prevented the current crisis. We don't know for sure. Also, a failure of which ever administration led to this impasse, if one did fail, is also on the American voters who chose presidents unskilled in government and diplomacy. We are feeling that bigtime now.
How, exactly, does the US handle verbal threats of attacks? NK was responsive to talks and sanctions during the 90s, but Clinton blew a peaceful nuclear power agreement stalling for regime change. Bush would not talk to "evil," so NK had no reason to trust our "diplomacy." The IRaq invasion showed the US' willingness to invade whomever we want based upon fabricated intel, never mind that Iraq was already perfectly contained and adhering to post Gulf War agreements. Libya scrapped its nuke program to comply with US wishes--and the US led a bombing campaign against Gaddafi. The clear lesson from all this is that the US "handles" threats differently from president to president, that the only way you could be SURE the US could not launch a ground invasion is to have nukes.
Wait I'm a little confused here Dill. You're saying NK had no reason to trust our diplomacy, but what reason did we have to trust them? I may be mistaken, but wasn't it North Korea that crossed the 38th parallel and initiated what would become known as the Korean War? Wasn't it North Korea that attempted a reunification of the Korea's by force? I don't understand this "imperial aggressor" stance that North Korea has when they're the ones who decided to invade South Korea because they had Russia and China behind them.
We found out during the Bush administration that the unusual digging that the North Koreans were doing during the Clinton administration was in fact a part of the North Koreans attempt to cover up a secret nuclear program while still under the non-proliferation treaty. The North Koreans even admitted what they were doing and pulled themselves out of the treaty altogether.
If anything, I'd say North Korea has way more to prove in terms of trust than the US does in relation to them.
Quote:I don't see any scenario in which NK carries out a nuclear attack on the US without extreme provocation, like a land invasion by the US.
Their leader and ours are both unstable, given to reckless threats. It is not clear how well their advisors can control their actions. Think of the Cuban missile crisis without Kennedy or Khrushchev. Kim Jong Un may actually have a better sense of geopolitcs, understanding that China and Russia will not sit by while the US rains "fire and fury and, frankly, power" on their doorstep. That is a two edged sword of course. They don't want Kim bringing trouble to their doorstep.
At this point I'm not sure of the sanity of the Kim regime. Part of me feels they just might be crazy enough to nuke us.
Quote:Which is why diplomacy plus sanctions are the best option right now. Kim can't strike everyone sanctioning his regime, and sanctions would bring it down more certainly than military attacks. The US lacks leadership with any international stature right now. The question is whether people around the current president can manage the crisis. Sad that generals are the only reasonably competent diplomats on the Trump team.
I'm not sure how diplomacy will solve anything in all honesty. When North Korea invaded South Korea they clearly showed what their main goal is, and that is the reunification of Korea. That will never happen under diplomacy. What the North wants out of "diplomacy" is for the US to pack their bags and get out of South Korea so that they can finish their reunification process. It's the reason they hate us. It's not because we're "imperialists". It's because we stopped them from successfully taking over South Korea and reunifying the nation.
It's my personal belief that North Korea's goals of modernizing their nuclear capabilities has very little to do with "US aggression" and more to do with North Korea wanting to attempt another reunifying campaign against the South. I don't see diplomacy working as long as the Kim family is still the leadership of the country.
(08-10-2017, 11:12 PM)Vlad Wrote: Is this some kind of a joke?
Attempts at diplomacy with NK goes as far back as Clinton, perhaps even farther.
Here Billy say how the North Koreans have agreed to dismantle its nuclear program.
I'm aware that the latest spin is that NK is a result of the failure of Clinton and Obama.
I'm also aware that the current administration puts more stock in tough talk than on diplomacy. And that they are utterly understaffed and unprepared to handle actual events versus the conspiracy and fake events they tweet about.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(08-10-2017, 11:15 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'm aware that the latest spin is that NK is a result of the failure of Clinton and Obama.
I'm also aware that the current administration puts more stock in tough talk than on diplomacy. And that they are utterly understaffed and unprepared to handle actual events versus the conspiracy and fake events they tweet about.
He said "goes back as far as Clinton" which would mean Clinton, Bush, Obama.
But by all means, pretend that he was targeting only Democrats, and that diplomacy can fix this if only Trump had a full staff.
Which makes me wonder. If you think the thing that's keeping them from solving this diplomatically is a full staff, does that mean you think Trump is capable of solving this problem, when Clinton, Bush, and Obama couldn't? Because either you think Trump with a full staff is capable enough to solve something the last three Presidents couldn't do, or you have to admit you're bitching about not having a full staff because it's yet another thing about Trump you can ***** about even though you acknowledge it wouldn't make a difference.
Australia has said it will invoke its long standing military alliance with America in the event the North Korean regime attacks the US. Malcolm Turnbull, Australia’s prime minister, issued the pledge on Friday following overnight talks with US vice president Mike Pence about escalating tensions on the Korean peninsula.
“America stands by its allies, including Australia of course, and we stand by the United States,” Mr Turnbull told Australian radio. “So be very, very clear on that. If there’s an attack on the US, the Anzus Treaty would be invoked and Australia would come to the aid of the United States, as America would come to our aid if we were attacked.”
Mr Turnbull’s comments are much tougher than those made by Julie Bishop, Australia’s foreign minister, who on Thursday said Australia would not automatically be involved were there to be a “catastrophic” conflict on the Korean peninsula. “In fact we were not a party, in the legal sense, to the [Korean War] armistice so there is no automatic trigger for Australia to be involved,”
Ms Bishop told Australia’s state broadcaster. “As far as the Anzus alliance is concerned, that is an obligation to consult. But of course we’ve been in constant discussion with the United States.” Australia’s military and strategic alliance with the US dates to 1951 when both countries signed the Anzus treaty, along with New Zealand. Although New Zealand later abrogated the pact, the mutual defence provisions are binding between the US and Australia and it remains the bedrock of Canberra’s foreign policy. Australian troops have fought alongside US forces in every major military conflict since the first world war.
In addition to this Japan said it will shoot down any North Korean missles fired by NK towards US territory.
(08-11-2017, 07:21 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: In addition to this Japan said it will shoot down any North Korean missles fired by NK towards US territory.
These are other world leaders trying to convince the US not to make a preemptive strike.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(08-11-2017, 12:04 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: He said "goes back as far as Clinton" which would mean Clinton, Bush, Obama.
But by all means, pretend that he was targeting only Democrats, and that diplomacy can fix this if only Trump had a full staff.
Which makes me wonder. If you think the thing that's keeping them from solving this diplomatically is a full staff, does that mean you think Trump is capable of solving this problem, when Clinton, Bush, and Obama couldn't? Because either you think Trump with a full staff is capable enough to solve something the last three Presidents couldn't do, or you have to admit you're bitching about not having a full staff because it's yet another thing about Trump you can ***** about even though you acknowledge it wouldn't make a difference.
Choose.
There have been a number of articles about this and how the right wing noise machine has placed the blame firmly on Obama (and less on Clinton) while allowing Bush and Bush to remain mostly blame free.
That is what I was commenting on.
I think that a person who was prepared to handle the job of POTUS would also know that there is a full staff for a reason. But a person who is used only hiring family because he can't "trust" anyone else is ill-prepared for the job.
His choice of words proves that. His lack of attention to detail shows that.
On top of that right now Trump is giving Kim everything he wants: A fight of words.
Kim's propaganda machine is probably in overdrive about the American Menace. And they don't even have to make up an quotes.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(08-11-2017, 09:56 AM)GMDino Wrote: There have been a number of articles about this and how the right wing noise machine has placed the blame firmly on Obama (and less on Clinton) while allowing Bush and Bush to remain mostly blame free.
You realize that the recent "breaking" news by the Washington Post reporting that the NK's had 60 miniature nukes is a 4 year old story?
Don't report on it when Obama was prez. Nows a good time.
(08-11-2017, 12:17 PM)Vlad Wrote: You realize that the recent "breaking" news by the Washington Post reporting that the NK's had 60 miniature nukes is a 4 year old story?
Don't report on it when Obama was prez. Nows a good time.
That has zero to do with what I said.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: 20728354_1962301323780836_65163350747526...e=59F3FBCD]](https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/20728354_1962301323780836_6516335074752650878_n.jpg?oh=09b2b2254aba71f90fdfee52b1af88b1&oe=59F3FBCD)
![[Image: jamarr-chase.gif]](https://media.tenor.com/Ycw6u-nmw3AAAAAM/jamarr-chase.gif)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
