Of course it is; the military isn’t going to swoop in and save us from Trump no matter how many people fantasize about it. Nor are they going to feel any particular remorse about attacking yet another country. If told to attack North Korea, they’ll follow orders and do exactly that.
I’d agree with this. There’s no way he’ll actually attack North Korea, as it’s an underlying basis of the entire world order since WWII: You don’t attack a nuclear power. Like it or not, North Korea is a nuclear power now, and that isn’t going to change.
Attacking Canada would be fairly easy, but I suspect even the die-hard Trumpists would be hard pressed to buy into that.
But Mexico? “Failure to secure their border against illegal aliens” gives him a fig leaf of a legal justification. They’re not a nuclear power. And attacking Mexicans feeds into his fans existing dislikes, so it won’t cost him any of his support.
This is why I can no longer consider myself part of the liberal culture, you guys are seriously thinking and verbalizing that Trump is going to nuke Mexico. And no one has called you out on it yet. You and Trump are all bat-shit ridiculous in your paranoia.
I’m reminded of “She’s a Witch”!!! BURN HER!!!
- She looks like one.
- She’s got a hat like one
- She’s got a nose like one
- She’s got a wart
Then it gets so ridiculous that someone caught up in the frenzy says an over-the-top, outrageous thing.
- She turned me into a newt!
But doesn’t yet realize it was too much hyperbole or ridiculous enough to backtrack and say ‘they got better.’
Pretty big leap from “military strike” to “nuking”. Glad you safely made the jump - you could have been hurt!
Der Trihs made the jump already in the post Horatius was responding to.
Just to remind everyone, the premise of the poll is not a nuclear strike, on anyone. Just some kind of military engagement.
But you chose N Korea for your OP, probably the most hardened border on the planet with a regional super power sitting behind it. Any military engagement there would have to be massive to not be an embarrassing flop.
If he was going to do some Wag the Dog thing, it would probably be to just heat up some already active war zone.
It doesn’t have to be an invasion. It could be a naval blockade or interdiction to enforce sanctions.
Trump is a lot of things, but eager for war he is not. He’s been pretty consistently outspoken against US military involvement, as far as I can recall.
I have a feeling Trump’s biggest problem may be having a Congress and media establishment drooling for war, while he wants to preserve peace.
First off, I’m not a liberal, I"m at best a Red Tory, so you’re right off the bat wrong. Secondly, as others have pointed out, there’s things other than nukes he could use.
And thirdly, he’s already had to be talked out of invading Venezuela, so it’s not “paranoia” to contemplate who else he might get a bee in his bonnet about.
Except that he’s already shown he’s willing to consider military force. Not only the example above, but all his rhetoric directed at North Korea and Iran is all about how he can destroy them. That’s not what someone who is “against US military involvement” does. He doesn’t care about the military involvement, he only cares about how much it costs.
Rather the opposite, he’s been eager to use military force up to and including nuclear weapons and only talked down with great effort by people explaining why just nuking people who irritate him is a bad idea. Trump is a maniac.
Indeed he is. When he finds a powerful tool at his disposal he has to be corralled by sane people before he uses it on everything, everywhere b/c it’s so much fun to wield power over others. Even before he was elected (by a fraction of the US’s registered voters) he was hot to drop bombs.
It has become impossible for the US to attack NK under the present circumstances. It has no allies for such. SK won’t go along. The US can’t go to war, which is all it knows how to do, and it doesn’t want peace to break out which would threaten its perch on the borders of China and Russia.
Trump holds the opinion of the person he spoke with (or saw on television) most recently. Take, for example, the whole declassification of the FISA Warrants business. He tweeted about it, etc, for a few days. Then, he spoke with the actual professional people - including his enemy Rosenstein - who are running the DOJ - and came away with a different opinion. Now he doesn’t need to declassify the documents after all.
Military action would play out in exactly the same way. This exact scenario was laid out in the NY Times Op-Ed - There is at least one person in the administration who is trying to keep Trump’s impulsiveness from causing more damage than it already does.
Let’s hope for a blue congress, and, therefore, largely inaction for 2 years, then a more even tempered, professional president.
Lindsey Graham is one of the most hawkish Senators there is. But the fact is, the US never takes the military option off the table, so saying it “may be back on the table” doesn’t make any sense.
You know that, and I know that, but I was talking in the context of Trump’s public statements like this one, where he assures America we no longer have to worry about war with the North Koreans:
When an influential Senator with President’s ear says says anything could happen, it contradicts Trump’s simplistic view of diplomacy. If Graham and Bolton are the last ones to talk to him after Trump realizes Kim isn’t going to give up any of his nukes, his peace proclamations can quickly become inoperative .
I said “I don’t know” because there’s too many variables. But if he wanted a strike, it’d be someplace that couldn’t hit back, like Venezuela or Afghanistan. Or Chad. Niger. Someplace like that, in a poor country full of brown people.
Rudy sez it’s going to be Iran, although he won’t commit to a date:
I’m sorry, I can’t imagine Trump ever admitting he’s been played. Trump will defect to North Korea and build a golf-course-in-exile before admitting he got duped on his signature achievement.