POTUS UN Speech

[*bfine32*]

(09-23-2017, 12:36 AM)Dill Wrote: 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 than mine.

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), not 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.

You tried to refute Japan is not laughing at Trump by posting opines from almost 2 years ago; while there are numerous current articles about how we and Japan are in accord with the tougher stance against NK and somehow I'm the one that has not supported my claim.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-23-2017, 12:24 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Calm yourself.

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

The article is related to the opinion of one white Canadian professor's opinion.

It doesn't have anything to do with the opinions of anyone from Japan or South Korea. Certainly no Japanese or South Koreans were applauding anything in that article because not a single one was interviewed to determine their opinion.

[BmorePat87]

(09-22-2017, 10:27 PM)Dill Wrote: 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."

China can't afford to losing the US as a trading partner. While China has a semi ideological bound with North Korea, a lot of the reason they still support them is they share a 800 mile border and can't risk a refugee crisis if the Kim regime fell. I'm not sure that outweighs trading with the US

[*bfine32*]

China has 1 trillion reasons for the US not to fail.

[Belsnickel]

(09-22-2017, 10:43 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: 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?

Not at all. His rhetoric towards NK is but one part of the equation. Overall opinions by Japanese towards Trump, which is to what I was referring, is modified by that rhetoric, by his on other issues that affect them, by his policy actions in a number of different areas, and by variables that Trump has no control over but causes their opinions to shift. You could have the same rhetoric and actions by Trump, but some other factor occurs in Japan and opinions can shift based upon that internal factor. Or an external factor from another country that presents more of a problem.

All of this is true any time we look at public opinion polls. There are so many factors that can impact opinions that there is no way to truly point to the cause of any change.

[StLucieBengal]

(09-22-2017, 10:35 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: 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.  

Do you think that I supported any of these? You are speaking to ge guy who wants to close our borders off to this region.

[GMDino]

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-fg-trump-northkorea-20170922-story.html

Quote:Aides warned Trump not to attack North Korea's leader personally before his fiery U.N. address


 
Senior aides to President Trump repeatedly warned him not to deliver a personal attack on North Korea’s leader at the United Nations this week, saying insulting the young despot in such a prominent venue could irreparably escalate tensions and shut off any chance for negotiations to defuse the nuclear crisis.

Trump’s derisive description of Kim Jong Un as “Rocket Man” on “a suicide mission” and his threat to “totally destroy” North Korea
were not in a speech draft that several senior officials reviewed and vetted Monday, the day before Trump gave his first address to the U.N. General Assembly, two U.S. officials said.

Some of Trump’s top aides, including national security advisor H.R. McMaster, had argued for months against making the attacks on North Korea’s leader personal, warning it could backfire.

But Trump, who relishes belittling his rivals and enemies with crude nicknames, felt compelled to make a dramatic splash in the global forum.


Some advisors now worry that the escalating war of words has pushed the impasse with North Korea into a new and dangerous phase that threatens to derail the months-long effort to squeeze Pyongyang’s economy through sanctions to force Kim to the negotiating table.

A detailed CIA psychological profile of Kim, who is in his early 30s and took power in late 2011, assesses that Kim has a massive ego and reacts harshly and sometimes lethally to insults and perceived slights.

It also says that the dynastic leader — Kim is the grandson of the communist country’s founder, Kim Il Sung, and son of its next leader, Kim Jong Il — views himself as inseparable from the North Korean state.

As predicted, Kim took Trump’s jibes personally and especially chafed at the fact that Trump mocked him in front of 200 presidents, prime ministers, monarchs and diplomats at the U.N.

Kim volleyed insults back at Trump in an unprecedented personal statement Thursday, calling Trump “a mentally deranged U.S. dotard” and a “gangster” who had to be tamed “with fire.”

Kim’s foreign minister, Ri Yong Ho, threatened to respond with “the most powerful detonation,” a hydrogen bomb test in the Pacific Ocean, according to South Korea’s Yonhap News Agency.

Trump lobbed another broadside Friday, tweeting that Kim “is obviously a madman” who starves and kills his own people and “will be tested like never before.”

The clash may undermine Trump’s other efforts on the sidelines of the General Assembly meetings.

Quote:[/url] Follow
Donald J. Trump 

@realDonaldTrump
Kim Jong Un of North Korea, who is obviously a madman who doesn't mind starving or killing his people, will be tested like never before!
6:28 AM - Sep 22, 2017

He spent much of Thursday meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and South Korean President Moon Jae-in in an effort to carve out new ways to pressure Kim to freeze or roll back his nuclear program.

On Thursday, Trump announced new U.S. sanctions against other countries, foreign businesses and individuals that do business with North Korea, a move likely to chiefly affect China, Pyongyang’s largest trading partner.

John Park, a specialist on Northeast Asia at Harvard’s Kennedy School, said the tit-for-tat insults have created a “new reality” and probably have shut off any chance of starting talks to curb North Korea’s fast-growing nuclear arms program.
“If the belief centers around sanctions being the last hope to averting war and getting North Korea back to the negotiating table, it’s too late,” Park said.

Since taking office, Kim has pushed the nuclear and missile programs far faster than U.S. experts had expected, sharply accelerating the pace of development and tests. Kim has conducted four of the country’s six nuclear tests.

U.S. officials now believe that North Korea has fully one-third of its economy invested in its nuclear and missile programs.
Trump and his senior aides say Kim has used foreign assistance, including trading subsidies from China, to offset such massive spending. They believe the latest U.S. sanctions, on top of the U.N. sanctions, will help choke off some of that income.

In recent months, Pyongyang has tested its first two intercontinental ballistic missiles, conducted an underground test of what it claimed was a powerful hydrogen bomb, and fired midrange ballistic missiles over northern Japan.

[url=http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-alabama-20170922-story.html]
U.S. experts assess that North Korea is six to eight months away from building a small nuclear warhead robust enough to survive the intense heat and vibrations of an intercontinental ballistic missile crossing the Pacific and reaching the continental United States.

Given Kim’s record of putting political rivals and dissenters to death, including members of his own family, his public statement blasting Trump makes it highly unlikely that other North Korean officials would participate in talks about ending the country’s nuclear program, Park said.

“There is no one on the North Korean side who is going to entertain or pursue discussion about a diplomatic off-ramp, because that individual would be contradicting the leader, which is lethal,” Park said.
Trump has returned to rhetoric he’d used during the campaign, when he called Kim a “madman playing around with nukes” and a “total nut job.”

But Trump also praised Kim at the time, saying during a Fox News interview last year that Kim’s “gotta have something going for him, because he kept control, which is amazing for a young person to do.”

The president has been fixated on the threat from Pyongyang since taking office.

Trump “rarely lets me escape the Oval Office without a question about North Korea,” CIA Director Mike Pompeo said in July at a national security forum in Aspen, Colo. “It is at the front of his mind.”

But Trump also has expressed frustration at the failure of previous administrations to block North Korea’s advances in ballistic missile and nuclear technology despite negotiations, sanctions, export controls, sabotage and other efforts.

President Clinton, and then President George W. Bush, engaged in two major diplomatic initiatives to convince North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons efforts in return for aid. Both initiatives ultimately collapsed. President Obama reportedly tried cyber-sabotage.

Obama warned Trump before he took office that North Korea would be his most pressing international concern, and the new president was alarmed to learn how close Kim was to developing an intercontinental ballistic missile that could deliver a nuclear warhead to U.S. soil.

Despite all of that, Trump rarely derided Kim by name after he entered the White House.

In May, he said he’d be “honored” to meet Kim under the right circumstances.

In August, after U.S. intelligence analysts became convinced Pyongyang had miniaturized a nuclear warhead, Trump said the country would face “fire and fury” if it made more threats against the United States. But he stopped short of hurling personal insults.

Matthew Kroenig, a political scientist at Georgetown University and expert on nuclear deterrence, said Trump’s threat this week to “totally destroy” North Korea comes out of the U.S. playbook for preventing a nuclear attack.

“The point is to deter a North Korean attack, and the art of deterrence hasn’t changed,” he said in a phone interview Friday. “It is to convince your adversary that the benefit of committing an attack would be outweighed by the costs.”

“That’s what Trump was making clear — it is not in Kim Jong Un’s interest to attack the U.S.,” Kroenig said.

[Dill]

(09-23-2017, 01:02 AM)bfine32 Wrote: You tried to refute Japan is not laughing at Trump by posting opines from almost 2 years ago; while there are numerous current articles about how we and Japan are in accord with the tougher stance against NK and somehow I'm the one that has not supported my claim.

The LINKS I posted, in two different posts, cover a period from 2106 until August of this year. They stand as evidence because they include polls and opinion leaders (an editorial).  Japanese speaking for Japanese. Not politicians whose job is to save or at least manage diplomacy between the US and Japan.  The Japanese absence of confidence in Trump documented in those links makes perfect sense, given his belligerent and erratic behavior.

This statement --"There are numerous current articles about how we and Japan are in accord"--is just a restatement of your claim Japanese are happy with Trump, with the added claim there are "current articles" in place of actual links. Still just a claim, no support, no evidence anything has changed since 2016.

So yes, you are "somehow" the one who has not supported his claim. And "open-minded" is not the term to describe someone who rejects an evidence-based claim in favor of an unsupported claim.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-25-2017, 12:31 AM)Dill Wrote: The LINKS I posted, in two different posts, cover a period from 2106 until August of this year. They stand as evidence because they include polls and opinion leaders (an editorial).  Japanese speaking for Japanese. Not politicians whose job is to save or at least manage diplomacy between the US and Japan.  The Japanese absence of confidence in Trump documented in those links makes perfect sense, given his belligerent and erratic behavior.

This statement --"There are numerous current articles about how we and Japan are in accord"--is just a restatement of your claim Japanese are happy with Trump, with the added claim there are "current articles" in place of actual links. Still just a claim, no support, no evidence anything has changed since 2016.

So yes, you are "somehow" the one who has not supported his claim.

Your articles were old, irrelevant to the topic at hand and, in one case, an editorial.  Own your failure and move on.  Alternatively, you could tell us stories about having your wallet returned to you, I enjoyed those.

[Dill]

(09-23-2017, 04:07 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: China can't afford to losing the US as a trading partner. While China has a semi ideological bound with North Korea, a lot of the reason they still support them is they share a 800 mile border and can't risk a refugee crisis if the Kim regime fell. I'm not sure that outweighs trading with the US

I'm not sure that it does either.

However, my point is that when two erratic, authoritarian leaders put nukes on the table and start calling each other names, we can no longer be sure how China, or the rest of the world, will react. They would not view a US nuclear strike on NK the same way they would view a drone strike in Yemen or a round of cruise missiles dropped on Syria. 

If NK somehow managed to nuke Guam or other US territory first, China might respect a US retaliation in kind. But if Trump makes China and Russia believe that he is likely to use nukes preemptively, then I think that might trump trade with the US--which the US needs as well. 

China claims its financial institutions are disengaging with Korea. Trump has instructed the Treasury Dept. to identify further industries to sanction (e.g. fishing).  If, through diplomacy, Trump can get enough nations on board with UN sanctions, that should incapacitate NK far more quickly and effectively than name calling and risky military threats.

But it's not clear that diplomacy and sanctions are priority for Trump. He might think they are great one day, after speaking to Mattis or McMaster, but not great the next, after a phone call from Bannon. He might goad NK into doing something BEFORE the sanctions take effect, and then decide NK has left him no choice but some kind of military action. 

How would China and Russia and others respond to the US calling for sanctions and then derailing them before they can work?  How might populations of other allies react?  People/nations would not have to be "allies" of NK or side with them to oppose US actions then.

[Dill]

(09-23-2017, 11:13 AM)GMDino Wrote: http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-fg-trump-northkorea-20170922-story.html

On Thursday, Trump announced new U.S. sanctions against other countries, foreign businesses and individuals that do business with North Korea, a move likely to chiefly affect China, Pyongyang’s largest trading partner.

John Park, a specialist on Northeast Asia at Harvard’s Kennedy School, said the tit-for-tat insults have created a “new reality” and probably have shut off any chance of starting talks to curb North Korea’s fast-growing nuclear arms program.
“If the belief centers around sanctions being the last hope to averting war and getting North Korea back to the negotiating table, it’s too late,” Park said.

This is expresses my major concern about the current situation. Sanctions had a chance to work. Now the possibility is diminished.  Imagine if Obama had insulted Iranian clerics while trying to get the Iranians to sign the Nuke treaty with them.

There is another problem which could result from trashing one's own diplomacy here.  If the US starts sanctioning everyone who does business with NK while tanking negotiations, that could create a backlash against the US and further force countries into economic and political solutions in an effort to "manage" the US.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-22-2017, 03:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.

Is the act of thinking three words so that not a single person around me is aware of my reaction pants wetting hysteria?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-23-2017, 07:56 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Not at all. His rhetoric towards NK is but one part of the equation. Overall opinions by Japanese towards Trump, which is to what I was referring, is modified by that rhetoric, by his on other issues that affect them, by his policy actions in a number of different areas, and by variables that Trump has no control over but causes their opinions to shift. You could have the same rhetoric and actions by Trump, but some other factor occurs in Japan and opinions can shift based upon that internal factor. Or an external factor from another country that presents more of a problem.

All of this is true any time we look at public opinion polls. There are so many factors that can impact opinions that there is no way to truly point to the cause of any change.

Okay, gotcha. You're referring to their overall opinion of Trump while I was referring to their opinion on Trump's stance toward North Korea. I must have failed to notice the distinction earlier.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-23-2017, 10:30 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Do you think that I supported any of these? You are speaking to ge guy who wants to close our borders off to this region.

You avoided answering the question. The US derived the authority to invade Kuwait in 1991 and Iraq in 2003 directly from UN resolutions which is why you didn't answer my question and tried to change the subject.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-25-2017, 12:33 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Your articles were old, irrelevant to the topic at hand and, in one case, an editorial.  Own your failure and move on.  Alternatively, you could tell us stories about having your wallet returned to you, I enjoyed those.

The article Matt cited was basically an editorial of an editorial. It offered the opinion of a Canadian as to his opinion of the Japanese and South Korean's opinions. Then the author included her opinion on of the Canadian professor's opinion of the Japanese and South Korean's opinions in the title to her article. But, not once did the author ever quote the opinions a single Japanese or South Korean person.

So please point out who in Japan or South Korea appaulded Trump's speech in that article.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-25-2017, 06:51 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The article Matt cited was basically an editorial of an editorial. It offered the opinion of a Canadian as to his opinion of the Japanese and South Korean's opinions. Then the author included her opinion on of the Canadian professor's opinion of the Japanese and South Korean's opinions in the title to her article.  But, not once did the author ever quote the opinions a single Japanese or South Korean person.

So please point out who in Japan or South Korea appaulded Trump's speech in that article.

You're trying to make me have a discussion I wasn't even having.  Matt's article is more relevant to the topic at hand by the simple fact that it's actually about N. Korea and isn't over a year old.  You want to debate the validity of Matt's article, fine.  Just don't try and make the simultaneous argument that Dill's article were anything other and old and irrelevant.  I hope that's clear enough for you.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-25-2017, 07:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're trying to make me have a discussion I wasn't even having.  Matt's article is more relevant to the topic at hand by the simple fact that it's actually about N. Korea and isn't over a year old.  You want to debate the validity of Matt's article, fine.  Just don't try and make the simultaneous argument that Dill's article were anything other and old and irrelevant.  I hope that's clear enough for you.

Incorrect. By the title, the article is supposed to be about the Japanese and South Korea people's opinion on Trump's speech at the UN. Apparently, they hold Trump's speech in such high esteem they applauded.

Unfortunately, the article doesn't describe a single opinion of a single person from Japan or South Korea.

So how can an article without their opinion be relevant to their opinion . . . without their opinion?

(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.

I didn't want to debate the validity of Matt's article and I didn't make the simultaneous argument Dill's articles were anything other than old and irrelevant.

All I did was ask to know who applauded. In your rush to point out my pants wetting hysteria clearing demonstrated by asking a simple question you started the debate of the validity of Matt's article with me (see quote above) and you claimed I made the argument Dill's articles were whatever the hell you want to accuse me of claiming (see quote above.)

So who is guilty of pants wetting hysteria?

So far I thought,"Jesus ***** Christ" and asked to know who applauded and you've insulted me at practically every turn. So who is guilty of pants wetting hysteria?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-25-2017, 11:00 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: So far I thought,"Jesus ***** Christ" and asked to know who applauded and you've insulted me at practically every turn. So who is guilty of pants wetting hysteria?

You've been insulted at every turn?  I apologized for calling you "far left", you didn't respond.  You either accept the apology or you don't just don't expect me to continue on with your borderline OCD obsession with this topic.  Dill's articles were irrelevant, Matt's was on topic.  If you disagree with the opinion of Matt's article, fine.  Either way I'm done arguing in circles with you.

Lastly, calm yourself.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-25-2017, 11:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You've been insulted at every turn?  I apologized for calling you "far left", you didn't respond.  You either accept the apology or you don't just don't expect me to continue on with your borderline OCD obsession with this topic.  Dill's articles were irrelevant, Matt's was on topic.  If you disagree with the opinion of Matt's article, fine.  Either way I'm done arguing in circles with you.

Lastly, calm yourself.

More insults. Like I said.

I did respond. It was either deleted by a mod or it disappeared while the site transitioned this weekend and was acting all wonky on my end. Not knowing which occurred, I decided not to repost my response.

[Dill]

(09-25-2017, 11:00 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: So who is guilty of pants wetting hysteria?

So far I thought,"Jesus ***** Christ" and asked to know who applauded and you've insulted me at practically every turn. So who is guilty of pants wetting hysteria?

You were not following SSF's rules.  Hence the insults, accusations and policing which drive discussion off topic and into the personal.

But you were following the argument and striving to stay on topic.  And that ought to be acknowledged.

Bfine made the unsupported claim that Japanese were "quite happy" with Trump.

I put up links marking what Japanese thought of Trump based upon Japanese data from 2016--like using last year's Tokyo phone book because this year's is not out yet. Sure it's not "current." Some numbers may no longer work. but it is better than NO phonebook. And can we just assume that every number in the phone book has changed since last year?

SSF does, claiming links from 2016 are no use at all, nor could Japanese editorial opinion count as evidence of Japanese opinion because editorials "should never be used as 'proof' of anything."  Bels then, in the spirit of social science, reaffirms this currency requirement. 

Neither found fault with Bfine's still wholly unsupported claim.

I added more current links.  Bels added his link about all the Japanese "applause."

And you, understanding what is now required to establish the claim of Japanese satisfaction with Trump, correctly pointed out
that Bels' link was 1) more of a poll of what one Non-Japanese thought with no reference to Japanese evidence, and so 2) it does not establish Bfine's claim, even if it is about North Korea and recent.  When the issue is Japanese opinion of Trump--perfectly consonant with the topic of the thread--no one following the argument, or interested in following the argument, would demand you admit a link is more "on topic" simply because it mentions North Korea or is recent.

At best it appears SSF is ignoring the specific point to which all these links addressed and has substituted the general thread topic as the criterion for relevance.

So as the matter stands as of now, all the indicators of Japanese opinion that we have suggest Japanese are not happy
with Trump and offer no reason to suppose that opinion could be easily moved.   And if one is following the argument, that is exactly where productive discussion ends until someone can provide evidence that Japanese are satisfied with Trump because of some recentevent like his NK speech.