It’s Trump. Our last President was, to put it politely, more politically aware.
So when Obama talked tough, he didn’t really mean it, and it was just bluster like his “red line” nonsense. But when Trump issues some boilerplate diplomatic rhetoric, he is inches away from launching the nukes. Got it.
Regards,
Shodan
As usual, you got what you wrote, but not what I wrote. You could solve a lot of misunderstanding if you would stick to directly quoting people instead of using “other words” that are actually your own.
The red line statement was a mistake. Perhaps the biggest of Obama’s foreign policy statements. But context matters and Obama could never be characterized as a loose cannon.
Trump, on the other hand, does nothing but shoot off his mouth in every direction and without factual basis or diplomatic rational or thought to consequence.
Who has done more damage to his own credibility and that of the US on the international stage?
I think its all just bluster, for now at least. He’s trying to put on a strong Nixonian madman persona on to try to intimidate Kim into behaving. The problem is that Kim (the ultimate madman) will more than likely call his bluff. Then Trump has the option of either failing to follow through with the possibility of losing face, or else start a catastrophic war. At that point he will have to make a determination as to which option is less likely to hurt his popularity with his fans, and South Koreans don’t vote.
I agree the OP is overinterpretting small farting sounds emanating from the executive branch. I also agree the risk of miscalculation is extra high with this administration in general and especially at this point in their learning experiences.
I’m wondering about this though:
I’m not sure whether **Gyrate **is saying that Russia would want or not want US adventurism in Iran. Nor whether Russia would want or not want US adventurism in NK. I can read that statement any one of 4 ways. Perhaps I’m being too literal; that’s usually my blind spot.
Anyhow, *if *we assume Trump is influenced by Putin, we can also assume that Putin’s goal for Trump is more to weaken the US than to strengthen Russia. We have farther to fall than Russia has to gain. It’s Putin’s goal for Trump to arrange that fall. Ideally making it look like an accident or at least a home grown US decision with few if any Russian fingerprints on it.
Putin (somehow) goading Trump into escalating a crisis with NK would be almost idea for this purpose. Once Kim & Trump start jaw-jawing at each other the whole thing takes on a wonderfully self-reinforcing dynamic. The Russians don’t really much care what the trajectory is nor the final outcome. As long as it’s bad for the US it’s good for Russia.
If the NK theater gets to be a shooting war there’s no doubt which side the Chinese will take. By and large Russia can cheer from the sidelines while the Chinese carry their water. And best of all, they live upwind of the entire Korean peninsula. Sounds like a winski-winski situation to them.
For Trump, there’s always a third option, that of the pathological liar that he unquestionably is: deny you ever said what you absolutely, unequivocally DID say and then move on without looking back.
“Can be viewed?” That’s a weak statement. Have you literally nothing better to offer in terms of your support for your OP? Did anyone in the Administration use the word “preemptive strike” at all? Because you seem to be the only one using the term. Just because you use the term, doesn’t mean others are implying it.
Well, I gave you my take…I don’t see any advantage to Trump et al in trying to blow this up deliberately, which was part of what you were getting at. Yeah, Trump isn’t even in Bush’s league wrt local or international politics…sad, that…but even taking that into account I don’t see how ACTUALLY having the US unilaterally attack North Korea would help in any way that would make sense to Trump. That’s really the crux. As far as his rhetoric, well…that’s what he does. And his minions pretty much take their cue from the Trumpster. So I don’t see this as any sort of indication, certainly not based on any evidence thus far provided, that it’s another more than that.
Tillerson: Pre-emptive force an option with North Korea
Tillerson Doesn’t Rule Out Preemptive Strike on North Korea
Exhausted Rex Tillerson threatens a preemptive strike on North Korea
Rex Tillerson: Pre-emptive military action against North Korea is an option
Secretary of State Tillerson: Use of pre-emptive force an option with North Korea
Riddle me this: let’s say a newspaper ran a story which said, “Tillerson says a drug-fueled boys weekend with Kim Jong Un in Miami, including late nights at Scores and Cheetahs, is on the table in order to negotiate a deal to end North Korea’s nuclear weapons program.”
Would that newspaper be technically correct? In a separate question, would that report be accurate?
^This. Putin will be doing all he can to egg Trump on: ‘so, Donald, I guess you’re pretty scared of the North Koreans, eh? You’re not up to taking them on, eh?’
Possibly working against Russian goals: the fact that Bannon is focused like a laser on his longing to wipe out Islam. There aren’t many Muslims in North Korea. (None out in the open, certainly.)
Bannon will go along with Vlad’s wishes only if it’s the one way to keep Trump in power. That is, if things are going badly down the toilet–the GOP Congress showing its lack of loyalty to Trump; doubts growing among the base; investigations getting close to real dirt that could touch Trump–in that situation, if there simply no excuse available to go after a majority-Muslim nation, then Bannon will give his reluctant assent to a hot war against North Korea.
And it could go that way. Despite strenuous attempts to rile up Muslims world-wide with this ham-handed Travel Ban, Muslims remain…peaceful. Bannon could resort to a false-flag bombing of a Trump property as a means of getting us into war with a Muslim nation, but inconveniently, there isn’t one in Iran (the nation most of the base would like the USA to invade). It’s a tough one for Bannon.
North Korea can’t be attacked without first evacuating Seoul and Tokyo, neither of which is feasible without tipping NK off, I would expect. And certainly, if you wanted to do it, talking about it in front of a bunch of reporters is pretty dumb.
So…the safe bet is that they will not attack North Korea, except maybe through hacking or targeted infiltrations to destroy particular installations.
Trump may be President, but he is not God-Emperor and a straight-out attack on North Korea would never get off the ground short of him firing 90% of the military command structure and re-hiring only crazies. By the time he’d finished, NK would already have let everything loose.
*If * our side is using sound strategy and has an eye to somewhat reducing what are already going to epic numbers of civilian dead & wounded.
Those considerations *should *be there. Given bad or crazy enough judgment on our side (or a surprise attack from the NK side) those considerations may not get a look in.
Agreed. which is why the OP is so much hyperventilation.
Why the hell shouldn’t they have weapons of mass destruction if the U.S. ( and others ) have them ?
And people can say ‘Might makes Right’ and that as the biggest bully on the block the US should force this, but so long as NK retains them, they can tell Tillerson etc. to go fuck themselves.
Anyway, whatever old Bill’s triangulating, and whatever the brilliance of Bush at Strategy, and whatever the cool, detached, aware incompetence of Obama, the last three presidents were crap at world diplomacy so it’s kinda unfair to blame Trump for inevitable deficiencies in this regard.
There’s not a lot anyone can do with North Korea, except China, and they don’t need the hassle.
Seriously? Well, off the top of my head I’d go with ‘because the US doesn’t routinely threaten, publically, to nuke or destroy every power around them’. In addition, you could use the ‘the US also doesn’t randomly shell or sink our neighbors islands or ships’ and ‘the US doesn’t test ICBMs by firing them at or near our neighbors to antagonize them’. There are a lot more but I think those hit the high points. There are some countries that shouldn’t have WMD…North Korea is sort of the poster child for that small group of nations.
They have been doing that WITHOUT nukes for decades. Which begs the question…why do they need them again? Iran has backed off of making the evil things now…and, lo! The US still hasn’t invaded or attacked them!
Trump is dangerously bad at diplomacy, however. He’s in a whole 'nother league of incompetence, and one that endangers everyone. No, he’s not to blame for where we are with North Korea…he’s just dealing with it in an incredibly bad and reckless way. Hell, if you read the article it’s unclear whether Tillerson is actually speaking to Trump, reflects Trump’s actual policy or is even in the loop. If that doesn’t scare the crap out of you nothing will. :eek:
China can’t do a whole lot either. Recently the Chinese stopped buying coal from NK, which might not sound like a huge deal but it’s a substantial part of NKs GDP. This was to get them to stop randomly testing ICBMs at Japan and over SK, and to basically get the US to back off of deploying our interceptor missile system to SK…you know, 'cause it’s safe and all and no need to worry. The NKs basically told China where they could stuff that coal and did another test. China is finding they have no more control of the situation than anyone does, since the NK leadership is fine with a few million of their citizens starving if it means they get to keep on keeping on.
Even if there was a limited exchange (and I’m hoping that is so unlikely that it virtually couldn’t happen) wouldn’t this require a boots on the ground land war in Asia afterward?
Lots has changed since the 50s and I don’t see Trump as someone who could rally the UN.
I don’t see him as a coalition builder (which he would have to be in order to be successful, right?).
Every president says that. It’s not a “trial ballon”, it’s boilerplate. You honestly don’t know the difference?
It’s actually nice to see Trump doing/sayig something utterly mundane for a change.
One of the classic blunders!