POTUS UN Speech

[StLucieBengal]

(09-22-2017, 01:48 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Global alliances engaged in a way is what made the first two World Wars "world wars". Without China rushing to their aid, which they won't, it would be North Korea against an American-Korean-Japanese alliance (likely others too). 

Even if China joined them, it's still a regional conflict, not a global conflict, unless there are multiple global fronts. World War I and II saw fighting in Europe, Africa, and Asia.

Iran could start more trouble in the Middle East.

And I still think Germany is one to watch in any conflict. Their power grab of the EU will eventually have to be dealt with by members. World war 3 probably happens when the EU wakes up and realizes they are under German control.

To be clear I agree this NK stuff won't be a world war. I am just speaking on tension points

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-22-2017, 01:57 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Who applauded? Because both the Japanese and South Korean governments have been silent in their applause of Trumps speech.

Wait, Dills dated articles having nothing to do with North Korea were relevant to you have a problem with this one?  I love your consistency.

(09-22-2017, 02:01 PM)jason Wrote: Are Iran and Iraq still card carrying members of the Axis of Evil?

Iraq, no.  Iran, absolutely!     I doubt Iran would involve themselves in any conflict with North Korea, not that you were making a serious suggestion.  Any involvement on their part would be the end of them and they're more than aware of that.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-22-2017, 12:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Incorrect.  If you feel the need to have everything in life reduced to a yes or no answer then you're not going to have a good time.  Please read my response and try, try, try again.  Head first this time, dive right in!

Really? When was our last presidential election? 2016? Did the results of that event in 2016 influence the speech Trump gave at the UN? Yes. Otherwise Trump wouldn't have been there to threaten to destroy North Korea in his speech.

Also, I didn't ask an open ended question. It was a closed ended question. I assume a LEO understands how a yes or no questions works. Do you understand how a yes or no question works; yes or no?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-22-2017, 10:24 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I was actually going to say the same thing as SSF when I first saw Dill's post. In fact, every one of those articles is from before Trump was in office. The difference being that what he said on the campaign trail can be (note I am saying can be, not is) different than actions since he has taken office. Japan rightly got riled by his rhetoric on the campaign trail because of his message being a threat to their security and economy. But, has he enacted policy to that regard and how have the Japanese responded since he has been in office?

We would need articles talking about the views of the Japanese on Trump since he has taken office to really get a good feel for that, and pretending otherwise is just being stubborn.

How has Trump's rhetoric towards North Korea changed?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-22-2017, 02:08 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Really?  When was our last presidential election? 2016? Did the results of that event in 2016 influence the speech Trump gave at the UN?  Yes. Otherwise Trump wouldn't have been there to threaten to destroy North Korea in his speech.

I love that you keep digging the hole.  What were Dill's articles about?  When you answer that question you'll have answered the question as to why they lack relevance due to the topic at hand.  Aside from one of the articles being an editorial, which has been addressed.  I do love that you're doubling down on this while simultaneously questioning Matt's relevant, and recent, article on the actual topic being discussed. 

Quote:Also, I didn't ask an open ended question. It was a closed ended question. I assume a LEO understands how a yes or no questions works.  Do you understand how a yes or no question works; yes or no?

I am and I do, which is exactly why I didn't answer your closed ended question on an open ended topic.  It's also why I accused you of wanting black and white answers to a question that is too nuanced for them.  If you don't improve your reading comprehension then you're going to have a bad time.

[Belsnickel]

(09-22-2017, 02:11 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: How has Trump's rhetoric towards North Korea changed?

Did I say his rhetoric changed?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-22-2017, 02:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Wait, Dills dated articles having nothing to do with North Korea were relevant to you have a problem with this one?  I love your consistency.


Iraq, no.  Iran, absolutely!     I doubt Iran would involve themselves in any conflict with North Korea, not that you were making a serious suggestion.  Any involvement on their part would be the end of them and they're more than aware of that.

Calm yourself.

The article claims Japan and South Korea appaulded Trump's speech without interviewing a single person from the Japanese or South Korean governments. Dill's articles at least included Donald Trump.

I love how you're so anxious to point out this hyperbolic hysteria you've elevated thinking three words to pants wetting hysteria which is itself hyperbolic hysteria. You have literally appointed yourself the thought police.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-22-2017, 02:30 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Calm yourself.

Calm yourself.

Quote:The article claims Japan and South Korea appaulded Trump's speech without interviewing a single person from the Japanese or South Korean governments. Dill's articles at least included Donald Trump.

The key difference being that Matt's article is relevant and Dill's are not.  Keep digging though.

Quote:I love how you're so anxious to point out this hyperbolic hysteria you've elevated thinking three words to pants wetting hysteria which is itself hyperbolic hysteria. You have literally appointed yourself the thought police.

No really, calm yourself.  You're starting to sound like Dabo.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-22-2017, 02:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Calm yourself.



The key difference being that Matt's article is relevant and Dill's are not.  Keep digging though.


No really, calm yourself.  You're starting to sound like Dabo.

The article interviewed one person. Professor Stephen Nagy. Steve is neither Japanese or Korean. He is from Canada and from his pictures a cracker just like me. Is Steve the spokesperson for both countries? Yes or no.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-22-2017, 02:46 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The article interviewed one person. Professor Stephen Nagy. Steve is neither Japanese or Korean. He is from Canada and from his pictures a cracker just like me. Is Steve the spokesperson for both countries? Yes or no.

Calm yourself.

I'll ask you a closed question, since you seem to like them.  Is Matt's article more relevant to the topic at hand than Dill's?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-22-2017, 12:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: He won't respond to this Matt.  The far left posters on this board display an unerring ability to ignore points they can't refute or twist.  Of course the far right posters on this board do the same thing, but we aren't dealing with one of them in this instance.

And what makes me a far left poster? My gun ownership? My military background? My beliefs regarding personal responsibility and individual liberty? That I believe in capital punishment in a limited capacity? That I don't believe in open borders?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-22-2017, 03:05 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: And what makes me a far left poster?  My gun ownership?  My military background? My beliefs regarding personal responsibility and individual liberty?  That I believe in capital punishment in a limited capacity?  That I don't believe in open borders?

You know what, that's a fair statement.  I shouldn't lump you in with Dill and GMDino.  I hereby retract my statement in regards to you and offer an apology.

[Dill]

(09-22-2017, 10:43 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Do you have anything a little more current (Perhaps from this year). Like since NK has been launching missiles over their country?

I'll help you with your research. They recently had a meeting.

Who is "they"?

I don't mind being held to higher standards than Trump.

But do you have anything at all, current or otherwise, to support your claim that JAPAN IS QUITE HAPPY with Trump??

Starting in January of this year.
Asahi poll: 48% pessimistic on Japan-U.S. ties under Trump
http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201701170034.html

In June, a widely reported Pew Poll found that 72% of Japanese had no confidence in Trump's ability to manage world affairs, while 24% did the median number for all countries polled was 74/22: Worldwide, few confident in Trump or his policies
http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/06/26/worldwide-few-confident-in-trump-or-his-policies/

In this August Pew poll of Putin's popularity worldwide, Japanese favor him over Trump by 4 percentage points.
Publics Worldwide Unfavorable Toward Putin, Russia
http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/08/16/publics-worldwide-unfavorable-toward-putin-russia/

As 2016 went, so goes 2017.  Any reason at all to suppose the Japanese public has more confidence in than fear of Trump diplomacy, much less that they are QUITE HAPPY with him?

[Dill]

(09-22-2017, 01:48 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Global alliances engaged in a way is what made the first two World Wars "world wars". Without China rushing to their aid, which they won't, it would be North Korea against an American-Korean-Japanese alliance (likely others too). 

Even if China joined them, it's still a regional conflict, not a global conflict, unless there are multiple global fronts. World War I and II saw fighting in Europe, Africa, and Asia.

Can we be sure that China, and Russia, won't somehow "rush" to their aid?

What makes the current stand off different from previous is that now there are two unstable leaders and both sides have nukes.

A nuclear strike to NK is a direct threat to both China and Russia. Also, if the US is attacked, that triggers NATO.

We should expect China and Russia to work actively to prevent such a conflict. 

If they think the US won't strike first, they will likely pressure Kim to avoid conflict, perhaps be willing to make sanctions fully effective. If they think the US might strike first, a better option might be to back NK, to warn the US a nuclear strike on NK would not be tolerated.

My point is, we cannot for sure say what China and Russia will do. That is one consequence of "brinksmanship."

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-22-2017, 12:04 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: It's the UN.   Without us there is no UN and really our president can pretty much say anything and everyone has to sit there and take it.  

The UN is there so diplomates have a job.

So a bully pulpit.  Awesome. I'm sure that's you're idea of leadership or anyone else unfamiliar with leadership.  It's even worse diplomacy.

Out of curiosity, can you explain to me where the US derived the authority to invade Kuwait in 1991 or Iraq in 2003.  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-22-2017, 02:24 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Did I say his rhetoric changed?

No, nor did I accuse you of claiming his rhetoric.  But, if we want to understand how their reaction to his rhetoric has changed over time, doesn't it make sense to understand how the rhetoric has changed which they are reacting to?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-22-2017, 02:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Calm yourself.

I'll ask you a closed question, since you seem to like them.  Is Matt's article more relevant to the topic at hand than Dill's?

LMAO

"Donald Trump applauded by Japan, South Korea for brazenness on North Korea in UN speech"

The author quoted one white guy from Canada who isn't affiliated with the government of Japan or South Korea who literally didn't use the word, "applause" a single time in any of his quotes.  Hell, the author didn't even interview a single Japanese or South Korean person for their opinion of Trump's speech.  While the leader's from Japan or South Korea haven't issued any statements regarding Trump's speech.

How is something which didn't happen more relevant than Dill's articles?  Answer: it's not relevant.  Therefore, no; Matt's article about something which didn't happen isn't more relevant than Dill's articles.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-22-2017, 10:27 PM)Dill Wrote: A nuclear strike to NK is a direct threat to both China and Russia. 

No, it absolutely isn't.  Feel free to explain otherwise.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-22-2017, 11:04 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: LMAO

"Donald Trump applauded by Japan, South Korea for brazenness on North Korea in UN speech"

The author quoted one white guy from Canada who isn't affiliated with the government of Japan or South Korea who literally didn't use the word, "applause" a single time in any of his quotes.  Hell, the author didn't even interview a single Japanese or South Korean person for their opinion of Trump's speech.  While the leader's from Japan or South Korea haven't issued any statements regarding Trump's speech.

How is something which didn't happen more relevant than Dill's articles?  Answer: it's not relevant.  Therefore, no; Matt's article about something which didn't happen isn't more relevant than Dill's articles.

Calm yourself.

Copy that, related articles not as relevant as unrelated articles.  You're certainly building a house on solid ground.

[Dill]

(09-22-2017, 11:04 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: "Donald Trump applauded by Japan, South Korea for brazenness on North Korea in UN speech"

The author quoted one white guy from Canada who isn't affiliated with the government of Japan or South Korea who literally didn't use the word, "applause" a single time in any of his quotes.  Hell, the author didn't even interview a single Japanese or South Korean person for their opinion of Trump's speech.  While the leader's from Japan or South Korea haven't issued any statements regarding Trump's speech.

How is something which didn't happen more relevant than Dill's articles?  Answer: it's not relevant.  Therefore, no; Matt's article about something which didn't happen isn't more relevant than Dill's articles.

My articles were a response to Bfine's still unsupported claim that the Japanese are quite happy with Trump, as we were discussing the effects/consequences of Trump's speech and other behavior on the current conflict with NK.

Belsnickel, who elsewhere has agreed that Trump is an embarrassment to the US and not managing the Korean conflict well, discounted my links as too old and posted one which, as you say, does not adequately establish its premise. "Applause" seems to have been a reporter's colorful word choice. I expect Japanese to respond positively to Trump's mention of the kidnapped Japanese girl, but we're given no proof of such response; and even given proof of Japanese applauding the MENTION of the girl, it would hardly establish that they have suddenly changed their largely negative assessment of Trump's ability and policies--even if Bels' link is more current.

Now it looks like SSF is asking you to judge the articles in question on their relevance to the general thread topic (Trump's UN speech), rather than on their relevance to the subtopic (Bfine's claim) which generated them. If the substitution of criteria is granted, then likely Bels' response to is more relevant to the thread topic.