[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
Here’s a guy who has billed the taxpayers for $35K in golf cart rentals since entering office (since they’re on his courses, guess who pockets the money?"
[/QUOTE]
Cite ? Not that I doubt you, but this is gold - petty, penny-ante, utterly classless gold. So, perfectly in character 
I found this one, but only for $17K. Most of it seems to be for the Secret Service.
I think it’s crazy to believe that Trump is planning to first-strike North Korea, or to invade it. He’d have to get General Mattis to agree, and he’d have to get the approval of McMaster. Both of those men are serious people who won’t tolerate bullshit or wag the dog tactics. To the extent that there is an actual military plan being devised for North Korea, those are the people who would be devising it.
The most aggressive plan I think we might see would be something like the U.S announcing that if North Korea launches another missile towards a U.S. ally, the launch site will receive a cruise missile. Any retaliation for that missile will be met with extreme force. If the North Koreans attack South Korea in any way, the result will be a pinpoint bombing campaign targeted directly at regime assets.
That of course would be a very dangerous thing to have to do, but the threat itself could perhaps deter Kim from launching more missiles.
But I suspect the point to all this is to put pressure on China. If I were to attribute any kind of strategic thinking to Trump, I would say that this looks like pretty smart strategy: You start out by declaring China a currency manipulator, threaten them with tariffs in a way that would really hurt them, then you have a summit where you tell your new friend Xi that a little help with North Korea would go a long ways towards showing good faith, and maybe you’ll have to rethink that whole currency manipulating thing… Then you couple that carrot with the big stick of a carrier group or two, and convince the Chinese that you are serious. A recent missile strike in Syria sure helps establish your level of seriousness…
Do I think Trump came up with a plan like that? Not a chance. But I could see someone like Mattis saying, 'Well, since this unpredictable lunatic is our CinC, let’s figure out how to make the crazy work in the American interest."
Being a loose cannon has its advantages - just ask Kim. A threat from Trump must carry a lot more weight than threats from Obama did - especially after the Red Line fiasco. So, if threats become a legitimate tool, the temptation is to use them. The drawback is that you better be willing to back them up.
But make no mistake - the carrier group and the bluster are likely intended more as a signal to China than to Kim. China is the only power around that can do anything about Kim without starting a war. China has always had more interest in maintaining North Korea as a buffer zone than in solving the problem. The task of hard diplomacy is to convince them that it’s ultimately in their best interest to solve the problem now. Because if there’s a war, China is going to be flooded with refugees. And if the U.S brings down the NK regime, it could mean a permanent U.S. military presence right on China’s border.
It’s certainly a dangerous game, but the fecklessness of the last few presidencies may have left no non-dangerous options on the table.
This. Some anti-Trumpers are taking the theories much too far.
“Incoming bandits, two o’clock, formation of four, range 65 miles. Targets will be within range in thirty seconds. Recommend AIM-120C.”
“Are the AIM-120Cs manufactured by Raytheon? Someone tell me! Is it too late to call my financial investment advisor?”*
I think Sam Stone’s analysis is pretty accurate. A few things make me think that the situation is less critical than what is being sensationalized on the news:
Trump doesn’t need those men to approve of a strike. An invasion can’t be pulled off without a huge amount of planning, but a missile strike is certainly in Trump’s power to order and pull off in no time at all. Why would he have to ask for James Mattis’s permission? Even if Mattis objected, Trump can tell him “sad” and order it anyway.
Pffft.
China isn’t the slightest bit impressed by a missile strike on a dipshit Middle Eastern hellhole. That has nothing to do with China. The U.S. has been bombing various countries for years and China isn’t intimidated. Why would they care about the largely symbolic attack on what’s left of Syria’s government?
China is fully aware of the capabilities of the U.S. Navy and, unlike a lot of gullible voters, are aware that there’s always a carrier group the the Pacific and steering it towards Korea is an easy thing to do.
Point is that things have gone awry in the past when people have misread each other’s intentions. The world nearly blew up because Kennedy failed to appreciate how shit scared the Soviets were of the missiles in Turkey and Italy; and “almost” did not become “actually” because once he *did *appreciate he agreed to remove them. On the other hand, Asquith and Grey did not realize how quickly thing could spiral out of control in 1914, and Kaiser Bill and Czar Nicky were sure the other would surely never risk war over Serbia and Austria; it would be just like past crises.
So, excuse me if I don’t take the hubristic “mehs” as reassurance. You have an unpredictable nutcase incharge of one country and then you have Kim Tertius in North Korea. Things can go very bad very quickly.
What I find fascinating about the “madman theory” people keep espousing is that no one can provide an example of it working.
The term is credited to Nixon and his belief it’d help him stop the Vietnam War… in 1969, which those of you with access to Wikipedia will note dragged on for years afterwards, and ended in defeat.
Crazy like a fox? No. Crazy like a Fox? Maybe.
Yes. And whereas a President of ordinary intelligence and emotional health would stop to consider all the possible consequences–both good and bad–of launching missiles, Trump (by contrast) is likely to think only of the lovely praise and plaudits he received the last time he okayed a missile strike. And oh, yes: of his stock portfolio.
All those who are pooh-poohing the idea that Trump might have any corner of his mind occupied by the potential for making money, appear never before to have heard of Trump. So permit me to introduce him to you: he is an individual who not only likes to make money, but finds it important to make money. Furthermore, he is an individual who has never yet displayed any capacity for sacrificing his own self-interest in the name of national security.
I expect he believes it will all work out fine in the end: he’ll be a lot richer, and can pick up even more riches via re-building projects in all the Asian cities that will be devastated in the cross-fire resulting from a US strike on North Korea. Plus he’ll be a massive hero to the media and the American people–think of the rallies! Win-win!
That’s how he thinks. Hundreds of thousands of dead Asians can’t rise to the level of ‘having significance’ for Trump, in comparison with all the goodies he expects to reap.
As a further display of incompetence, the naval group that was supposedly sailing toward Korea as a show of force- no just kidding, they were sailing in the opposite direction. Apparently the commander in chief is Barney Fife.
Going the long way around, maybe?
That would demonstrate a bravely pro-science stance–a not-inconsiderable show of courage in the flat-Earth era of Trump.
I assume you mean incompetence from Trump et al, not the Navy. Reading the reported cited in your Huff link the Navy, at least, hasn’t been given any sort of sense of urgency, and the carrier group in question was participating in an already scheduled joint exercise. There shouldn’t be any issue with it steaming 3500 miles by April 25th, which is when the South Koreans were talking about it being there.
Trump on the other hand…gods know what that guy think. Probably that you can move a carrier task group on a moments notice, even when it’s already tasked to do something else like participate in a joint exercise. 
is true. The US media for example recently emphasized rhetorical flourishes by the NK’s, such as ‘will launch a merciless strike against the US’ and ‘thermonuclear war could break out at any moment’ but both those have been stock phrases in NK propaganda for awhile, especially ‘merciless’, mujabi, everything by the NK’s v US is going to be mujabi, 
In the ROK there’s more public recollection of previous rounds of this, true.
the NK military is obviously not as materially capable as they present it. Personnel motivation though is a mystery.
again this isn’t clear IMO, just no way to know it. It’s not a question necessarily of being brainwashed as in no knowledge of the outside world (there’s now a lot of knowledge of the ROK in the DPRK via entertainment videos, not true until fairly recently) or possibility of untruth in what they hear from their government. But that’s not the same as abandoning loyalty. People are complicated, and NK defectors and their stories, of both their own evolution of thought and those who stayed behind show a very high level of such complexity. Besides which the army isn’t the general populace. In short, nobody knows the motivation of today’s KPA at the field level. It’s possible senior uniformed leadership would rebel at actions which brought on a war they’d likely lose*, but that’s also impossible to know in advance.
*the degree of motivation in the ranks would determine how costly it would be to defeat the KPA rather than whether it would eventually be defeated, which it almost certainly would be.
Sherrerd: Oh, come on. I have no love of Trump, but the man isn’t a complete moron. He understands that ships don’t fly and can’t cross oceans in a few hours. And the idea that he fires missiles off because of his stock portfolio is also nuts.
It’s also a stark contradiction to believe on the one hand that Trump is a drooling moron who can barely tie his own shoes, and yet is a scheming machiavelli who is manipulating the world to drive up stock prices for his investments.
Trump is a blowhard of slightly above average intelligence, but who has an exaggerated sense of his own knowledge and at best a superficial understanding of the issues a President needs to understand. And worse, his own ego won’t allow him to admit what he doesn’t know. That’s a dangerous combination.
On the other hand, so far Trump has shown an ability to find good people, and seems to be willing to listen to them. I am encouraged by the fact that he is slowly shedding sketchy characters like Bannon, Flynn and Manafort, and has been appointing people like Mattis and McMaster who have a history of speaking out when they think bad decisons are beng made. And also that his first Supreme Court pick is a person highly skeptical of executive power grabs.
If you want to think about events surrounding North Kora intelligently, it mght be best to assume that whatever strategy is at play has probably been devised by Mattis and McMaster, and forget about crazy Trump conspiracy theories.
On the other hand, if either of those guys resigns or appears to have been sent to the doghouse, you can worry that Trump is calling the shots and his calls are ill-advised.
Either he didn’t understand that the CV carrier group couldn’t possibly get to the Korean peninsula in the time table he said (and, in fact, couldn’t even start steaming TOWARDS it for several days past when he said it would start), or he DID know and was just fabricating the whole thing…which means he didn’t think anyone would figure it out and call him on it. Either way, it’s another example of him opening his mouth and spewing bullshit that makes him and his administration look like complete idiots. I don’t subscribe to weird CTs concerning his Raytheon stocks and tomahawk strikes (I leave that to Bob :p), but he sure does seem to put foot to mouth a lot, and it definitely reinforces the view that the guy is an idiot.
You appear to be saying, here, that unintelligent people are incapable of being greedy (and acting on that greed). I don’t believe that such a position is supported by either history, or by simple day-to-day observation.
I’m certainly no military expert. But, when we threaten military action, isn’t it best for everyone if it’s generally accepted that we mean what we say? If everyone starts thinking that our military threats are empty bluster, doesn’t that rather increase the odds that they will test us? Doesn’t that make conflict more likely? I mean, I’m not entirely sure I accept the premise that the best way to ensure peace is to make everyone terrified of challenging us. But I can see the logic. I can’t really see the logic in trying to ensure peace through hollow threats.
I agree with much of what you’ve posted except that Trump is of slightly above average intelligence. He certainly seem that way to me. He doesn’t speak as a slightly above average intellect and he seems woefully ignorant on a great many subjects (including shockingly subjects on which he is supposed to be knowledgeable). This probably stems from his ego that you reference. People who are arrogant and think they know everything have a hard time learning because they believe the already have the answer.
We know that when Trump sees something on TV he runs off and tweets about it. Is it possible that Trump got a briefing that a CV group was heading near North Korea in X days and he just kind of ran with it?