POTUS UN Speech

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-22-2017, 12:53 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't know, I'm pretty far left on the political spectrum of this board. But my field of study is also public policy, so I treat it a bit more scientifically.

I hate to break it to you, but on this board you fall in the center left.  If for no other reason then you are able to rationally process arguments coming from the other side and pick out parts of that argument that you agree with, or see merit in, without accepting the argument as a whole.  There are several posters on here who have zero ability to do this, almost pathologically so.

[Belsnickel]

(09-22-2017, 12:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I said upon his election that a possible positive of a Trump presidency is that he won't play by conventional rules in regards to foreign policy.  While consistency is good for allies, it's something they can rely upon, it can be exploited by enemies.  North Korea has been able to conduct itself with such bellicosity precisely because the US would predictably respond with restraint.  The same could be said for Putin's annexation of the Crimean peninsula.  Trump doesn't allow for that kind of predictability and consequently the North Korean can may no longer be kicked down the road.  Whether it turns out well, or in a bloodless fashion, of course remains to be seen.

I just wish that he wasn't overseeing what is damn near a dismantling of our State Department. His approach could turn out well for the reasons you stated, but they will come with consequences regarding our allies. With our diplomatic corps depleted in such a way, it makes it difficult to mitigate those consequences and it makes it difficult for him to really understand the situations he is in around the world.

[Belsnickel]

(09-22-2017, 12:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I hate to break it to you, but on this board you fall in the center left.  If for no other reason then you are able to rationally process arguments coming from the other side and pick out parts of that argument that you agree with, or see merit in, without accepting the argument as a whole.  There are several posters on here who have zero ability to do this, almost pathologically so.

I suppose if you think of it in that way. I just remember the 8 values thread you posted and I was just about the most liberal person here, ideologically speaking. There may have been one or two more so, but no more than than.

But, global scale, I am center left. I do know that.

[*michaelsean*]

(09-22-2017, 12:26 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah, that's the attitude.

Hey it's fun sometimes.  

[Matt_Crimson]

(09-22-2017, 11:23 AM)GMDino Wrote: Shooting it out of the sky to show NK they can't attack us?

I'd hope we wouldn't just start bombing the country though.

I'm just not looking forward to WWIII.

So maybe we should find a new way to stop such a scenario from happening other than tweeting out name calling like a 7th grade girl?

I don't know anyone that's looking forward to WWIII. People see North Korea as a growing nuclear threat. Wanting the US to do something about it doesn't mean people want WWIII to happen.

If NK shot a missle at us I feel we have no choice but to retaliate militarily.

[Belsnickel]

(09-22-2017, 01:14 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: I don't know anyone that's looking forward to WWIII. People see North Korea as a growing nuclear threat. Wanting the US to do something about it doesn't mean people want WWIII to happen.

If NK shot a missle at us I feel we have no choice but to retaliate militarily.

I think my biggest concern in all of this is that Seoul is literally within artillery range of NK. The potential for civilian casualties in SK is extremely high no matter what we do. If we strike, unless we have technology far more advanced than I understand it to be, there will be devastation.

I will say this, I don't know if it is because of NK or the ME, but we have had several students that are reservists getting called to active on a much shorter notice than we have seen before.

[GMDino]

(09-22-2017, 01:14 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: I don't know anyone that's looking forward to WWIII. People see North Korea as a growing nuclear threat. Wanting the US to do something about it doesn't mean people want WWIII to happen.

If NK shot a missle at us I feel we have no choice but to retaliate militarily.

And thus WWIII.

As an aside I remember all the way back in 2016 when my friends on the right said the world didn't respect (fear) the US because Obama was too soft and always apologizing.

Then when (a real man) Trump was elected he would be a tough guy and people would respect us again!  Now NK is lobbing missiles over Japan (unafraid of Trump) and it is still Obama's fault for not "doing something about it."

Hopefully this is just so much willywagging by both NK and Trump.

That still doesn't/won't change my mind that Trump is ill-equipped to handle any foreign policy.  Or any policy, really.  Probably because he thinks he can bully another country the way he can a painter in Florida that he doesn't want to pay or a girl he wants to grab.

[GMDino]

(09-22-2017, 01:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think my biggest concern in all of this is that Seoul is literally within artillery range of NK. The potential for civilian casualties in SK is extremely high no matter what we do. If we strike, unless we have technology far more advanced than I understand it to be, there will be devastation.

Well, ain't that just the price we have to pay to "fight them over there instead of here"? 

Yes, that is sarcasm.

No, I don't think it is funny.

[Belsnickel]

Trump at the UN, different situation: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-41345577

[*bfine32*]

(09-22-2017, 12:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Trump doesn't allow for that kind of predictability and consequently the North Korean can may no longer be kicked down the road.  Whether it turns out well, or in a bloodless fashion, of course remains to be seen.

This is the point I was making. Folks worry what kind of world we are going to leave for our children. NK, has been ignored too long. The absolutely best solution would be a revolt from within and Rocket Man has alienated himself to an extent to where China and Russia turn a blind eye.  

[*bfine32*]

(09-22-2017, 01:24 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Trump at the UN, different situation: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-41345577

Pat actually pointed to this in another thread and his response was as equally open-minded as you earlier points about Japan.

[Belsnickel]

(09-22-2017, 01:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Pat actually pointed to this in another thread and his response was as equally open-minded as you earlier points about Japan.

Didn't see that. I was just getting a good chuckle out of the Twitter responses. I have too much time on my hands, today.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-22-2017, 01:19 PM)GMDino Wrote: And thus WWIII.

Just who, exactly, do you see rushing to North Korea's defense militarily?

[GMDino]

(09-22-2017, 01:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Just who, exactly, do you see rushing to North Korea's defense militarily?

They have to have allies for their to be WWIII?

But will China like us lobbing bombs into NK?  Especially if we go nuclear?

You know, just as retaliation.

[BmorePat87]

(09-22-2017, 01:40 PM)GMDino Wrote: They have to have allies for their to be WWIII?

But will China like us lobbing bombs into NK?  Especially if we go nuclear?

You know, just as retaliation.

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.

[*michaelsean*]

(09-22-2017, 01:40 PM)GMDino Wrote: They have to have allies for their to be WWIII?

But will China like us lobbing bombs into NK?  Especially if we go nuclear?

You know, just as retaliation.

World war sorta implies that.  Otherwise it's just an ass-kicking.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-22-2017, 10:51 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Just in case anyone was curious, here is something from the Pacific area on how Japan and South Korea feel about all of this:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-20/japan-and-south-korea-applaud-trump-for-brazenness-in-un-speech/8965076

Who applauded? Because both the Japanese and South Korean governments have been silent in their applause of Trumps speech.

[StLucieBengal]

(09-22-2017, 12:26 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah, that's the attitude.

The UN is irrelevant.

The Muslim countries just Call Israel a human rights violator .... rinse repeat.

[*jason*]

(09-22-2017, 01:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Just who, exactly, do you see rushing to North Korea's defense militarily?

Are Iran and Iraq still card carrying members of the Axis of Evil?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-22-2017, 01:40 PM)GMDino Wrote: They have to have allies for their to be WWIII?

Uh, yeah.  For you to have World War III, you would need more combatants than US et al v. North Korea.  This isn't a complicated concept.

Quote:But will China like us lobbing bombs into NK?  Especially if we go nuclear?

To what purpose?  Do you think China wants to be destroyed?  North Korea is useful to them as a buffer state and a distraction.  They are not an ally they're going to go to war over.

Quote:You know, just as retaliation.

Retaliation would require us to do something to China they could retaliate over.