POTUS UN Speech

[*Nately120*]

(09-20-2017, 04:04 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Could be that some people don't like their country being the laughing stock of the rest of the western world.

The easy solution to that is to convince yourself that people are laughing/insulting/hating/getting worked up because they're upset over how awesome you are.

(09-20-2017, 04:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm pretty sure France is still a country.   

You're only mocking France because you're jealous of how awesome it is.

[Belsnickel]

(09-20-2017, 05:01 PM)Nately120 Wrote: The easy solution to that is to convince yourself that people are laughing/insulting/hating/getting worked up because they're upset over how awesome you are.

[GMDino]

(09-20-2017, 04:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Would anyone be mad at trump if he called N. Korea the JV squad or is it just Rocketman we have issue with?

Well one was in an interview and one was in the first speech by the current POTUS to the UN.




http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/sep/07/barack-obama/what-obama-said-about-islamic-state-jv-team/

Quote:Critics have maligned Obama’s "JV" remark in recent weeks as the Islamic State continues to wreak havoc throughout Syria and Iraq. The origin of the comment is a New Yorker profile of Obama by editor David Remnick. The New Yorker published Remnick’s profile on Jan. 27, 2014. In it, he wrote, "In the 2012 campaign, Obama spoke not only of killing Osama bin Laden; he also said that Al Qaeda had been ‘decimated.’ I pointed out that the flag of Al Qaeda is now flying in Fallujah, in Iraq, and among various rebel factions in Syria; Al Qaeda has asserted a presence in parts of Africa, too."


Obama responded: "The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant." (For the nonsports fan, JV stands for junior varsity, and it usually means a high school or college's secondary team.)



Remnick confirmed to PolitiFact that the interview took place on Jan. 7 and he was referencing a specific event that had happened just days before: the overtaking of the Iraq city of Fallujah on Jan. 3.


...


A transcript of the conversation provided to the Post (and verified by Remnick) also confirms as much.


Remnick:  "You know where this is going, though. Even in the period that you’ve been on vacation in the last couple of weeks, in Iraq, in Syria, of course, in Africa, al-Qaeda is resurgent."




Obama:  "Yes, but, David, I think the analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a JV team puts on Lakers uniforms, that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant. I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian."




Remnick: "But that JV team just took over Fallujah."




Obama:  "I understand.  But when you say took over Fallujah –"




Remnick:  "And I don’t know for how long."




Obama:  "But let’s just keep in mind, Fallujah is a profoundly conservative Sunni city in a country that, independent of anything we do, is deeply divided along sectarian lines. And how we think about terrorism has to be defined and specific enough that it doesn’t lead us to think that any horrible actions that take place around the world that are motivated in part by an extremist Islamic ideology is a direct threat to us or something that we have to wade into."



This pretty much leaves no doubt. Obama may not have specifically said Islamic State, but it’s clear he was talking about them. Remnick was referencing events in Syria and Iraq, particularly the takeover of Fallujah, which was conducted by Islamic State, and Obama referred to the group responsible for that as "a JV team."

So I'd say there's a slight difference in my opinion.


But then I'd also say I bet the right made a huge deal over what Obama said too. 

[GMDino]

(09-20-2017, 05:01 PM)Nately120 Wrote: The easy solution to that is to convince yourself that people are laughing/insulting/hating/getting worked up because they're upset over how awesome you are.



You're only mocking France because you're jealous of how awesome it is.

Also tweet that the problem is the fault of anyone who isn't currently POTUS....while taking credit for everything that has happened since you became POTUS.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-20-2017, 04:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Would anyone be mad at trump if he called N. Korea the JV squad or is it just Rocketman we have issue with?

That was stupid, too.

[Dill]

(09-20-2017, 02:07 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Their children are in the military and they know they are in harms way.

Well there's harms way and then there is harm's way because your leader does dumb stuff.

Harm's way does not release leaders from accountability, does it?

[GMDino]

(09-20-2017, 05:12 PM)Dill Wrote: Well there's harms way and then there is harm's way because your leader does dumb stuff.

Harm's way does not release leaders from accountability, does it?

Not when someone follows their leader blindly!

why do you hate the troops?!?!

[Belsnickel]

https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/in-war-of-elton-john-lyrics-kim-jong-un-calls-trump-honky-cat

[Dill]

(09-20-2017, 01:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Doesn't bother me if the leader of the world's most powerful military--currently in a political conflict with a nuclear power which could go hot any day now if not diffused by diplomacy--childishly insults the autocratic leader of that nuclear power before the entire world.

Cool, got it.  If the DPRK launches an attack on anyone in the next few weeks it will be Trump's fault.

Quite possible. But by the time they do launch an attack, there will have been a number misjudgments on Trump's part. It may not be clear which was the trigger.

If the president does not understand how to use diplomacy to diffuse a potential conflict, or worse, scorns it in favor of stunts and childish rhetoric, then that incapacity is really the larger problem, not any one thing he may say. 

And that is why someone might be bothered if he calls Eun a "rocket man" in a speech before the UN.  A reminder that Trump is just being Trump and that is how he got elected will not relieve anyone if a miscue brings down an artillery barrage on thousands of Americans and Koreans south of the DMZ.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-20-2017, 05:28 PM)Dill Wrote: Quite possible. But by the time they do launch an attack, there will have been a number misjudgments on Trump's part. It may not be clear which was the trigger.

If the president does not understand how to use diplomacy to diffuse a potential conflict, or worse, scorns it in favor of stunts and childish rhetoric, then that incapacity is really the larger problem, not any one thing he may say. 

And that is why someone might be bothered if he calls Eun a "rocket man" in a speech before the UN.  A reminder that Trump is just being Trump and that is how he got elected will not relieve anyone if a miscue brings down an artillery barrage on thousands of Americans and Koreans south of the DMZ.

Here we have more of your, "It's ok to punch someone if there message is offensive enough", bullshit.  If NK launches an attack on anyone it will be their own doing, the blame will lie solely with them.  

[Dill]

(09-20-2017, 04:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Would anyone be mad at trump if he called N. Korea the JV squad or is it just Rocketman we have issue with?

I think many people, not just Americans, would have been disappointed had Obama ever took the UN stage and, in a flourish of nationalist bravado, called world leaders and organizations names--"JV" or whatever.

But if, during a serious foreign policy interview, Obama or any other leader used the "team" analogy to clarify why (at the time) Al Qaeda still appeared the greater threat to the US than ISIS (e.g., having already killed 3,000 Americans in a direct attack and planning more, while ISIS was busy only in Syria and Iraq), then most would just hear rational policy analysis, not "name calling." The point would be to clarify a policy choice and not to call names.

[Bengalzona]

[Dill]

(09-20-2017, 05:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Here we have more of your, "It's ok to punch someone if there message is offensive enough", bullshit.  If NK launches an attack on anyone it will be their own doing, the blame will lie solely with them.  

Since its foundation, the US has expected its leaders, especially presidents, to make foreign policy judgments in the interest of the  country as a whole. That means, especially, understanding the long term implications of both rhetoric and actions on the prosperity and safety of the US. The fact that a president or other leader may be dealing with a bad actor does not absolve him from accountability.  E.g. a US officer who, in 1944, ordered a raw, undermanned platoon of soldiers to attack a battery of SS machine guns across open ground in Belgium might expect a court-martial--even if the resulting US deaths were the Nazis "doing."

Regarding NK, there are at least two options: 1) diffuse the situation through diplomacy, or 2) increase the likelihood of conflict with belligerent rhetoric and military brinkmanship.

If Trump chooses the former, resolving the conflict without a war, then he should be credited for that outcome. 

If he chooses option 2 and it leads to a conflagration on the DMZ, or worse, then Trump should be accountable for poor judgment--even if Kim is "to blame" for thousands of American and Korean deaths.

[Matt_Crimson]

The hysteria around Trump calling Kim "Rocket Man" is hysterical. One minute people are saying North Korea isn't crazy enough to attack us because they know we'd destroy them. The next minute North Korea might attack us because Trump called him Rocket Man. 

[Dill]

(09-20-2017, 05:57 PM)Bengalzona Wrote:

LOL that's exactly how I looked during that speech.  I envisioned rows of heads shaking at the Pentagon while millions of Trumpsters across the nation cheered a president ready to make America great again.

[Dill]

(09-20-2017, 06:24 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: The hysteria around Trump calling Kim "Rocket Man" is hysterical. One minute people are saying North Korea isn't crazy enough to attack us because they know we'd destroy them. The next minute North Korea might attack us because Trump called him Rocket Man. 

I don't think anyone is really worried that Kim would reach for the button because of a single speech.  But it could very well lead him to the next stage of escalation, though. And our response to his response might bring us to a hot war. 

What bothers people the most about Trump's rhetoric is the poor judgment it shows, an inability to understand how he sounds to both friend and foe, and what that means for his foreign policy "vision."

It also means that people in-house with better judgment still can't really contain him. 

[Dill]

(09-20-2017, 05:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/in-war-of-elton-john-lyrics-kim-jong-un-calls-trump-honky-cat

LOL "Tiny Dancer."

[*jason*]

(09-20-2017, 06:37 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL "Tiny Dancer."

Madman Across the Water.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-20-2017, 05:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Here we have more of your, "It's ok to punch someone if there message is offensive enough", bullshit.  If NK launches an attack on anyone it will be their own doing, the blame will lie solely with them.  

Trump also threatened to totally destroy North Korea. So while it is not okay to punch someone for an offensive comment in theory, in reality it happens all the time. And it is okay to punch someone in the nose or even use deadly force in response to a threat. This is just more of your hypersensitive bullshit to any Trump criticism. Oops, intrigue. More of your anti anti-Trump intrigue.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-20-2017, 06:58 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: And it is okay to punch someone in the nose or even use deadly force in response to a threat.

And you literally just justified Trump's response to North Korean rhetoric without realizing it.  Thank you for making my point for me, it's most kind of you.

Quote:This is just more of your hypersensitive bullshit to any Trump criticism.

Calm yourself.  I point out the hysteria over Trump, I am not a Trump fan nor am I sensitive, much less hypersensitive, to criticism of him.  I do enjoy pointing out the pants wetting hysteria that you and your ilk engage in over the man.

Quote:Oops, intrigue. More of your anti anti-Trump intrigue.

Hyperbole coupled with insincerity is a unappealing synergy.