OT - Trump & Kim Jung Un

[andy6025]

Trump won't attack North Korea. He's a pu**y!

Kim has him cucked!

[seriouspie]

Trump won't attack North Korea. He's a pu**y!

Kim has him cucked!

He'll lob one back if Kim carries out his threat in the next few days ......... which he won't.

[Trickytreesreds]

What a dumb topic.
The USA has the means to remove NK off the planet.
NK knows this and won't do jack ****.
It almost sounds if Andy is Kims bitch

[tarquinbeech]

TBH, the whole thing is quite alarming.....2 nuclear powers threatening each other....the only good thing is that Kim hasn't got any buddies in the playground, so it's unlikely to escalate beyond that sticky-out bit in the Pacific!!

Whatever happened to diplomacy?

[60YearsAPie]

Whatever happened to diplomacy?

It's alive and well and can be found on the NCM Forum.

[jackal2]

Relatively recent history (WW2) shows us the scale of the problem you can end up facing if you seek to appease a character like Adolf Hitler and under-estimate the threat he poses. And I would say Hitler had considerably more intelligence and a clearer strategic purpose than Kim Jong Un, who demonstrates the same psychopathic desire for control and the same disregard for risk, but also with less rational thinking.

The approach of previous American Presidents and other world leaders towards North Korea has mirrored the approach taken towards Germany in the ten years prior to WW2, either because they thought North Korea would never become such a threat, or because they knew that confronting the threat would cause a disaster in the region and cost thousands of lives.

Unfortunately, by not intervening sooner, all they have ensured is that the threat has grown larger, and that tackling it will be several times more difficult than it would have been some years ago. It certainly is not going to change or go away. We cannot "finesse" our way out of this with diplomacy and sanctions. Unless there is some sort of internal coup, which seems unlikely, then sooner or later North Korea will move to a level of provocation, if not an outright attack, to which the only response can be force.

Donald Trump isn't necessarily the man I would have chosen to be dealing with this powder keg at the critical moment, but neither is he to blame for it. He is inheriting a dilemma caused by many years of inaction and appeasement.

[andy6025]

Despite all his tough talk, he's done absolutely nothing about NK. Doesn't even know which direction his ships are going. How many 'last warnings' does Kim Jung Un get? As many as he wants, because Trump is completely impotent. Might as well just shut his big mouth before Kim fills it for him.

Trump's been pwned!

[keldsyke]

Despite all his tough talk, he's done absolutely nothing about NK. Doesn't even know which direction his ships are going. How many 'last warnings' does Kim Jung Un get? As many as he wants, because Trump is completely impotent. Might as well just shut his big mouth before Kim fills it for him.

Trump's been pwned!

Bizarre post, so you want DT to nuke NK?

[i961pie]

Despite all his tough talk, he's done absolutely nothing about NK. Doesn't even know which direction his ships are going. How many 'last warnings' does Kim Jung Un get? As many as he wants, because Trump is completely impotent. Might as well just shut his big mouth before Kim fills it for him.

Trump's been pwned!

Your post is more pathetic than your British election ones.

[jackal2]

Despite all his tough talk, he's done absolutely nothing about NK. Doesn't even know which direction his ships are going. How many 'last warnings' does Kim Jung Un get? As many as he wants, because Trump is completely impotent. Might as well just shut his big mouth before Kim fills it for him.

Trump's been pwned!

Trump's been pawned? How much did they get for him? ;D

Like I've said above, a succession of American Presidents have, in effect, been owned by North Korea in the sense that they've kept giving out stern warnings but have done nothing, mainly because of the implications for South Korea. Perhaps Trump will go down the same route for all his tough talk, but I think he's still the most likely to actually do something.

As Kelsdyke says, it's a strange thing to wish for, but ultimately the west may have no choice. If and when North Korea finalise their nuclear option (if they haven't got it already) I don't think Kim Jong Un is just going to sit back and relax. He will be even more emboldened and reckless.

[i961pie]

Trump's been pawned? How much did they get for him? ;D

Like I've said above, a succession of American Presidents have, in effect, been owned by North Korea in the sense that they've kept giving out stern warnings but have done nothing, mainly because of the implications for South Korea. Perhaps Trump will go down the same route for all his tough talk, but I think he's still the most likely to actually do something.

As Kelsdyke says, it's a strange thing to wish for, but ultimately the west may have no choice. If and when North Korea finalise their nuclear option (if they haven't got it already) I don't think Kim Jong Un is just going to sit back and relax. He will be even more emboldened and reckless.

I think Andy is doing a Sid making ridiculous statements to get a reaction

[andy6025]

Here's a short list of their ridiculous bellicose but without any balls to back it up.

CIA director Mike Pompeo said that it's "unacceptable" for NK to possess nuclear missiles capable of hitting the US.

Defense secretary James "Mad Dog" Mattis said, "The DPRK must choose to stop isolating itself and stand down its pursuit of nuclear weapons... The DPRK should cease any consideration of actions that would lead to the end of its regime and the destruction of its people." And finally, "You Will Lose. Your People Will Be Destroyed."

And the "big man" (with small hands) Trump himself said back in January about the prospects of NK developing an ICBM: "It won't happen!" About Kim Jong Un, he said, "This man will not get away with what he is doing!" As well as, "we have a situation that we just cannot let — we cannot let what's been going on for a long period of years continue." He also said, "The era of strategic patience with the North Korean regime has failed. Many years, and it's failed. And, frankly, that patience is over."

And then most recently, he even went and moved the goal posts when he said, "North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States, they will be met with fire and the fury like the world has never seen."

But we all know it's all just hot air. They're been fannying about because they're cowards standing around with their d*cks in their hands.

The only thing Trump has said right so far is: "Kim Jung Un is a smart cookie." Damn straight he's a smart cookie, he's played the cuck Trump like a fiddle!

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/world/asia/trump-twitter-north-korea-missiles-china.html

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-north-korea-s-kim-jong-un-he-s-pretty-n753006

http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-trump-warns-north-korea-of-fire-and-1502220642-htmlstory.html

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-09/mattis-warns-north-korea-youll-lose

http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-defense-chief-warns-north-korea-against-1502298984-htmlstory.html

[tarquinbeech]

Bizarre post, so you want DT to nuke NK?

Andy had one extra toke on the old Cannabis Peace Pipe, he'll be okey-dokey tomorrow

[i961pie]

Here's a short list of their ridiculous bellicose but without any balls to back it up.

CIA director Mike Pompeo said that it's "unacceptable" for NK to possess nuclear missiles capable of hitting the US.

Defense secretary James "Mad Dog" Mattis said, "The DPRK must choose to stop isolating itself and stand down its pursuit of nuclear weapons... The DPRK should cease any consideration of actions that would lead to the end of its regime and the destruction of its people." And finally, "You Will Lose. Your People Will Be Destroyed."

And the "big man" (with small hands) Trump himself said back in January about the prospects of NK developing an ICBM: "It won't happen!" About Kim Jong Un, he said, "This man will not get away with what he is doing!" As well as, "we have a situation that we just cannot let — we cannot let what's been going on for a long period of years continue." He also said, "The era of strategic patience with the North Korean regime has failed. Many years, and it's failed. And, frankly, that patience is over."

And then most recently, he even went and moved the goal posts when he said, "North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States, they will be met with fire and the fury like the world has never seen."

But we all know it's all just hot air. They're been fannying about because they're cowards standing around with their d*cks in their hands.

The only thing Trump has said right so far is: "Kim Jung Un is a smart cookie." Damn straight he's a smart cookie, he's played the cuck Trump like a fiddle!

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/world/asia/trump-twitter-north-korea-missiles-china.html

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-north-korea-s-kim-jong-un-he-s-pretty-n753006

http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-trump-warns-north-korea-of-fire-and-1502220642-htmlstory.html

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-09/mattis-warns-north-korea-youll-lose

http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-defense-chief-warns-north-korea-against-1502298984-htmlstory.html

As you obviously hate Trump and seem to like the North Korean Nut job, as a matter of interest what do you think Trump would do if the nut job actually attacked America or one of it's allies, will he do nothing as you are implying?

[andy6025]

As you obviously hate Trump and seem to like the North Korean Nut job, as a matter of interest what do you think Trump would do if the nut job actually attacked America or one of it's allies, will he do nothing as you are implying?

Trump said that he wouldn't let NK develop an ICBM, and they did.

Trump said that NK wouldn't get away with what they're doing. And they have.

Trump said that his patience has run out. It obviously hasn't.

Now if Trump wants to shift the goal posts to where he has to wait to be attacked then it simply shows how much of a p*ssy he is.

Why would NK bother attacking anybody? They got what they wanted and are holding two fingers up. And Trump is taking it... like the little b*tch that he is! That's because he's weak.

[seriouspie]

Trump said that he wouldn't let NK develop an ICBM, and they did.

Trump said that NK wouldn't get away with what they're doing. And they have.

Trump said that his patience has run out. It obviously hasn't.

Now if Trump wants to shift the goal posts to where he has to wait to be attacked then it simply shows how much of a p*ssy he is.

Why would NK bother attacking anybody? They got what they wanted and are holding two fingers up. And Trump is taking it... like the little b*tch that he is! That's because he's weak.

How old are you sonny Jim? Any reasonably intelligent person doesn't use words appertaining to a female dog and a cat's nick name to describe another human being. Trump is weak? ........... you don't become a billionaire by being weak lad ....... it seems to me you know very little about about this sort of thing. I bet you hate capitalists!

[BigFatPie]

How old are you sonny Jim? Any reasonably intelligent person doesn't use words appertaining to a female dog and a cat's nick name to describe another human being. Trump is weak? ........... you don't become a billionaire by being weak lad ....... it seems to me you know very little about about this sort of thing. I bet you hate capitalists!


He didn't "become" a billionaire, he inherited it.

It's worrying the world is at the mercy of a maniacal despot with daddy issues and Kim isn't much better. Interesting that Trump decided to take a day off Twitter yesterday the day after a woman was killed on US streets by neo Nazi terrorists. Priorities and all that.

[sidders]

How old are you sonny Jim? Any reasonably intelligent person doesn't use words appertaining to a female dog and a cat's nick name to describe another human being. Trump is weak? ........... you don't become a billionaire by being weak lad ....... it seems to me you know very little about about this sort of thing. I bet you hate capitalists!

What a patronising post, Serious. His name is Andy, not Jim. Some of the words you have used in the past to describe human beings have been distinctly more tasteless (Diane Abbott, for example).
There are plenty of billionaires who are weak people but good with money and investment. Trump isn't one of them. Like BFP says - his wealth is inherited. He is not the shrewd businessman he conned thick Americans into believing he was.
He has no idea of political process and how it works. Worse than that, he's not prepared to take sound advice.
I don't know whether Andy hates capitalists, but, like me, he probably hates the kind of capitalist Trump is. Ask his employees what they think of him.

[seriouspie]

He didn't "become" a billionaire, he inherited it.

It's worrying the world is at the mercy of a maniacal despot with daddy issues and Kim isn't much better. Interesting that Trump decided to take a day off Twitter yesterday the day after a woman was killed on US streets by neo Nazi terrorists. Priorities and all that.

He borrowed $14 million .........and turned it into $1000,000,000 plus.

But then again, you hate the rich don't you? There's always been the 'Have's' and the 'Have not's' for as long as I can remember but when I was younger you never got the bilious vitriol of envy that seems to abound today concerning the rich.

[SmiffyPie]

Despite all his tough talk, he's done absolutely nothing about NK. Doesn't even know which direction his ships are going. How many 'last warnings' does Kim Jung Un get? As many as he wants, because Trump is completely impotent. Might as well just shut his big mouth before Kim fills it for him.

Trump's been pwned!Andy, you are being extremely stupid on this post. Forget DT and his stupid posturing, and the same applies to KJU, all posture.
Are you seriously suggesting that the US should "removed" KJU by force? Are you seriously suggesting that the US (as it stands it would only be the US, it wouldn't get any UN backing (and Blair can't pull any strings these days)) should proceed with an attack on a sovereign nation that would in all probability suck in China and then God knows what would happen.
Really?

I also presume if it kicked off and escalated into something really nasty you would be at the front of the queue to sign on the dotted line? No, I didn't think so.

[sidders]

Andy, you are being extremely stupid on this post. Forget DT and his stupid posturing, and the same applies to KJU, all posture.
Are you seriously suggesting that the US should "removed" KJU by force? Are you seriously suggesting that the US (as it stands it would only be the US, it wouldn't get any UN backing (and Blair can't pull any strings these days)) should proceed with an attack on a sovereign nation that would in all probability suck in China and then God knows what would happen.
Really?

I also presume if it kicked off and escalated into something really nasty you would be at the front of the queue to sign on the dotted line? No, I didn't think so.

There will be no conscription in a nuclear war. You are out of time, Smiff.
I think Andy is implying that face to face shouting is a poor substitute for diplomacy. I agree with the opinion that the US has been indulging in a failed policy with regard to NK for many years.
You know what I would have done? Wrapped a huge food drop in US flags in areas of the country that the government couldn't easily reach. Then bombard the air waves with messages of friendship for the ordinary people. Much cheaper than military hardware and more effective. Lateral thinking isn't something you could ever accuse Haircut 100 of.

[Trickytreesreds]

Andy, you are being extremely stupid on this post. Forget DT and his stupid posturing, and the same applies to KJU, all posture.
Are you seriously suggesting that the US should "removed" KJU by force? Are you seriously suggesting that the US (as it stands it would only be the US, it wouldn't get any UN backing (and Blair can't pull any strings these days)) should proceed with an attack on a sovereign nation that would in all probability suck in China and then God knows what would happen.
Really?

I also presume if it kicked off and escalated into something really nasty you would be at the front of the queue to sign on the dotted line? No, I didn't think so.

and thats the truth of it.
Total fart

[Trickytreesreds]

There will be no conscription in a nuclear war. You are out of time, Smiff.
I think Andy is implying that face to face shouting is a poor substitute for diplomacy. I agree with the opinion that the US has been indulging in a failed policy with regard to NK for many years.
You know what I would have done? Wrapped a huge food drop in US flags in areas of the country that the government couldn't easily reach. Then bombard the air waves with messages of friendship for the ordinary people. Much cheaper than military hardware and more effective. Lateral thinking isn't something you could ever accuse Haircut 100 of.

No sid, you'd have done your Neville Chamberlain impression and come home waving a piece of paper.
Its sad acts like you, who actually start wars by being complete wusses.

[mickeymag]

Kim is just a windup merchant with his little country it'll only take 2 nukes. He knows how far to go as long as he looks good for his people he'll huff and puff.
Trump is all front, he sits on the fence even with is. own local issues.

[SmiffyPie]

There will be no conscription in a nuclear war. You are out of time, Smiff.
I think Andy is implying that face to face shouting is a poor substitute for diplomacy. I agree with the opinion that the US has been indulging in a failed policy with regard to NK for many years.
You know what I would have done? Wrapped a huge food drop in US flags in areas of the country that the government couldn't easily reach. Then bombard the air waves with messages of friendship for the ordinary people. Much cheaper than military hardware and more effective. Lateral thinking isn't something you could ever accuse Haircut 100 of.We are talking N Korean not mainland China. Any preemptive strike by the US would be to neutralise any nuclear weapon sites. IF China were to be dragged in (debatable) it would be a land/air conflict initially deploying tactical weapons not strategic. There would certainly be time to at least start to mobilise forces. There will certainly be time for Andy to head the queue.
Of course it would in all probability never happen unless Kim had a pop at the South (a whole different ball game, a game that would isolate the North, China would never openly admit to any involvement).

[andy6025]

No sid, you'd have done your Neville Chamberlain impression and come home waving a piece of paper.
Its sad acts like you, who actually start wars by being complete wusses.

Quiet Tricky, you're a p*ssy too.

But wait a sec... Trump... Tricky... Trump...

Are all right wingers such weak cowardly cucks?

Appeasement hasn't worked, so there's only one thing left to do.

"Patience has run out" as Trump said but won't actually do anything about it.

I think Trump and Mattis need to get out of the way and let real men handle this.

[Trickytreesreds]

Quiet Tricky, you're a p*ssy too.

But wait a sec... Trump... Tricky... Trump...

Are all right wingers such weak cowardly cucks?

Appeasement hasn't worked, so there's only one thing left to do.

"Patience has run out" as Trump said but won't actually do anything about it.

I think Trump and Mattis need to get out of the way and let real men handle this.

Post deleted

[seriouspie]

You certainly aint one of them. Faggot comes to mind

Or a pontificating 'Irrelevance'

[Trickytreesreds]

Or a pontificating 'Irrelevance'

Post deleted.

[ancientpie]

And people actually ask me why I don't bother with political threads??? I thought I'd left this sort of thing behind me in the infant school playground.

[Old_pie]

And people actually ask me why I don't bother with political threads??? I thought I'd left this sort of thing behind me in the infant school playground.

No, the real d1ckheads have both become leaders of nations continuing their war of words.

[sidders]

No, the real d1ckheads have both become leaders of nations continuing their war of words.

It's Tricky, Old Pie; the only way he knows how. I never enter into discussion direct with him these days.

[Trickytreesreds]

It's Tricky, Old Pie; the only way he knows how. I never enter into discussion direct with him these days.

You never discuss with anyone. You impose your pacifistic Liberal ways on everyone, as though the Guardian is the Bible.
It isn't even what Old Pie was saying, but your usual socialist mind made it so.

[ancientpie]

Yes, but I bet I can spit further than you

[tarquinbeech]

This thread went downhill quickly, and I wasn't even seriously involved this time......do I get Brownie points Swale?

[andy6025]

Hey all you little Trumpsters - why hasn't he taught Kim a lesson yet?

Because he's a fanny, that's why!

[tarquinbeech]

Hey all you little Trumpsters - why hasn't he taught Kim a lesson yet?

Because he's a fanny, that's why!

I think they got the message the first six times Andy.....are you trying to win Mr Personality of the Week award?

[i961pie]

How old are you sonny Jim? Any reasonably intelligent person doesn't use words appertaining to a female dog and a cat's nick name to describe another human being. Trump is weak? ........... you don't become a billionaire by being weak lad ....... it seems to me you know very little about about this sort of thing. I bet you hate capitalists!

Your last sentence is spot on

[i961pie]

What a patronising post, Serious. His name is Andy, not Jim. Some of the words you have used in the past to describe human beings have been distinctly more tasteless (Diane Abbott, for example).
There are plenty of billionaires who are weak people but good with money and investment. Trump isn't one of them. Like BFP says - his wealth is inherited. He is not the shrewd businessman he conned thick Americans into believing he was.
He has no idea of political process and how it works. Worse than that, he's not prepared to take sound advice.
I don't know whether Andy hates capitalists, but, like me, he probably hates the kind of capitalist Trump is. Ask his employees what they think of him.

The cavalry as arrived:P

[tarquinbeech]

The cavalry as arrived:P

Sid and Andy are fully paid-up members of the Socialist Marxist United Revolutionary Front (SMURF for short) and in the Trumpster, they have unlimited comedy material for a turn at the Edinburgh Fringe.....I'm just waiting for some funny bits.

[andy6025]

Can't any of you explain why your "man" has done nothing but let Kim walk all over him?

[SmiffyPie]

The cavalry as arrived:PJeez!! No wonder sidders keeps getting a stiffy!! It's "The cavalry has arrived"
I don't know!! Bulwell Hall kids!!

[SmiffyPie]

Can't any of you explain why your "man" has done nothing but let Kim walk all over him?Either your account has been hacked by a 15 year old or you are winding us up.

[i961pie]

jeez!! No wonder sidders keeps getting a stiffy!! It's "the cavalry has arrived"
i don't know!! Bulwell hall kids!!

Ha-ha ;D

[Trickytreesreds]

Ha-ha ;D

I call drugs

[andy6025]

Still nobody knows why Trump won't hold li'l Kim to account?

Who would have known he'd rather the little Korean boss man take him for a f*ckin' meat spin over anything else.

[SmiffyPie]

Still nobody knows why Trump won't hold li'l Kim to account?

Who would have known he'd rather the little Korean boss man take him for a f*ckin' meat spin over anything else.Why only DT? Why doesn't Canada step up to the plate? Because, as normal, we all hide behind the US coat tails.

[jackal2]

As I've indicated earlier in this thread, I think the point at which the USA or anyone else could intervene with limited consequences passed some time ago. I don't think Trump or any other Leader will want to be seen as jumping first, and perhaps Trump's hard-man rhetoric is one last attempt to try to get through to Kim using not-so-diplomatic diplomacy, but it won't work.

Nobody wants to confront this, and many can't process the thought of it happening, but I think the odds are very high that Kim Jong-Un will use his new weapons to launch an attack, because I don't think he cares about the consequences, and then all hell will break loose.

[i961pie]

Still nobody knows why Trump won't hold li'l Kim to account?

Who would have known he'd rather the little Korean boss man take him for a f*ckin' meat spin over anything else.

Is it half term?:?

[andy6025]

I think the odds are very high that Kim Jong-Un will use his new weapons to launch an attack.

If the odds are very high then why doesn't Trump take him out now before that happens???

... I almost forgot: because he's weak!

... and a p*ssy.

[jackal2]

If the odds are very high then why doesn't Trump take him out now before that happens???

... I almost forgot: because he's weak!

... and a p*ssy.

I think Western leaders in general like to be seen to have the moral high ground on their side, which in the world of international politics is an expensive and possibly unsustainable luxury. It really is the law of the jungle.

In some cases your opponents are people who will just do what they want or take what they want without any such crisis of conscience or need for explanation, and in other cases they are insane, pure and simple. If they sense that others are encumbered by considerations of morality or conscience, it's just a weakness to be exploited.

That's not to say Western Leaders are actually any less immoral or opportunist than any others, but they do seem to feel the need to cover it with some sort of 'greater good' explanation. For instance, Tony Blair tied himself in knots trying to justify invading Iraq.

[andy6025]

You think that Trump isn't taking out Kim because he's unsure whether he's got a moral backing?

The excuse for Iraq was that they might have a few chemicals lying around, and Iraq wasn't even pushing threats. Kim's threatened to reduce a few American cities to ashes and Trump is taking it. Bet he needs to change his diapers.

[jackal2]

You think that Trump isn't taking out Kim because he's unsure whether he's got a moral backing?

The excuse for Iraq was that they might have a few chemicals lying around, and Iraq wasn't even pushing threats. Kim's threatened to reduce a few American cities to ashes and Trump is taking it. Bet he needs to change his diapers.

I think Trump will wait for Kim to make the first move, because Western Leaders tend to do that. They seem to feel they must be the ones retaliating rather than attacking first. You seem a bit obsessed with Trump, but in truth the issue is broader than him. He just happens to be the current incumbent. Whether he's gutless or not, one thing is for sure, the dilemma he faces has grown because his predecessors were at least as gutless and probably more so. They avoided acting decisively when the consequences would have been less severe.

[andy6025]

So Western leaders tend to wait for a "smoking gun"? I don't think so - they (and the US in particular) have a long history of instituting regime change, or even just bombing countries without waiting for them to attack first - christ, it'd be a hippy, tree hugging peacenik's dreamland if the US always waited to get attacked first.

Criticize former presidents all you like - you'll get no objection from me. But Trump is the president now, and the only one who can give the order. But he won't do it - he's back tracked on his word and is acting like a p*ssy.

The man reknowned for "telling it like it is," should just admit that he's got no balls. The next words out of his mouth to Kim Jung Un should be, "would you prefer me to spit of swallow?"

[SolSigns]

because Western Leaders tend to [wait for other countries to make the first move]

Really?

So Korea made the first move against the US in the 50s?

Vietnam?

Granada, Libya, Panama, Somalia, Iraq... all made the first move against the US?

What about all the 'secret' wars in Laos, Nicaragua, Cuba, Angola...

Sad you have to resort to ignorant comments to debate with Andy. Puts you on a par with Tricky.

[tarquinbeech]

Really?

So Korea made the first move against the US in the 50s?

Vietnam?

Granada, Libya, Panama, Somalia, Iraq... all made the first move against the US?

What about all the 'secret' wars in Laos, Nicaragua, Cuba, Angola...

Sad you have to resort to ignorant comments to debate with Andy. Puts you on a par with Tricky.

....and Mexico, a few times....the last time in 1917.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/02/the-last-time-the-us-invaded-mexico-214738

I didn't realise that New Mexico, Colorada, Arizona, Texas and half of California was Mexican territory....robbing barstewards, now they talk about building a wall!!

[jackal2]

Really?

So Korea made the first move against the US in the 50s?

Vietnam?

Granada, Libya, Panama, Somalia, Iraq... all made the first move against the US?

What about all the 'secret' wars in Laos, Nicaragua, Cuba, Angola...

Sad you have to resort to ignorant comments to debate with Andy. Puts you on a par with Tricky.

You've actually created a sentence I didn't write, but I'll grant you that "first move" wasn't my best choice of words, because it suggests the first physical action. My point is the tendency (meaning not always, but a preference) is for Western Leaders to want some sort of moral pretence for their action, even if it's a fake one. You seem to be interpreting my comments as advocating the Western approach, but I'm not. If you read my comments earlier in the thread, I'm not suggesting for one moment that Western leaders have any genuine moral superiority, I just think they tend to feel the need to have a public relations story to justify their actions. Indeed, I make the point that in international politics that desire to be seen as the 'good guy' can be a weakness, if it leads to hesitation, or if the premise is then discredited, as happened to Tony Blair.

And I'm actually not debating with Andy (other than to observe that he's a bit Trump-obsessed). Andy has his view that Trump won't do anything, and as things stand that's the position, so there's not much debate about it! I think (but obviously I can't prove it yet) that Trump will have a threshold in his mind as to the maximum level of 'provocation' he will tolerate from North Korea, and that he will feel obliged to react if that is exceeded. Whether that threshold is a physical attack on a mainland US city, or firing a missile a few miles off Guam, I don't know.

[seriouspie]

If the odds are very high then why doesn't Trump take him out now before that happens???

... I almost forgot: because he's weak!

... and a p*ssy.

Corinthians 13:11 ..... " When I spake as a child I thought as a child, but when I became a man I put away childish things".

Ever heard this before youth? Still awaiting to hear how old you really are.

[60YearsAPie]

It looks like Fat Boy's taken a step back.

5992

[andy6025]

Would you agree that the "threshold in his mind" is far different than the threshold that he's publicly stated, as evidenced by the quotes I listed above?

[Trickytreesreds]

Would you agree that the "threshold in his mind" is far different than the threshold that he's publicly stated, as evidenced by the quotes I listed above?

trump will do nothing but sanctions, until NK does something stupid.
You confuse me Andy, it is almost as if you are wishing for a first strike?

[jackal2]

Would you agree that the "threshold in his mind" is far different than the threshold that he's publicly stated, as evidenced by the quotes I listed above?

As I understand it from the news reports, Donald Trump's comment was that North Korea would face "fire and fury" if it continued to threaten the United States, which is a bit vague. I would imagine in his mind he means a serious physical threat such as a missile landing off Guam, rather than localised missile launches or verbal threats, which are pretty standard from Kim these days. You would certainly be right that if North Korea did aim an attack directly at or near US territory, and if Trump didn't respond, then he could indeed be accused of empty rhetoric.

[andy6025]

Did you miss how Donald Trump had already moved the goal posts before that?

[upthemaggies]

There's a lot of history involved but I really don't think it helped when Bush junior popularised the "Axis of Evil" phrase circa 2001 (including North Korea among them) at a time when North Korea's relationship with the rest of the world had seemingly been heading in a more positive direction, certainly compared to what it had been in 1994. It's been all downhill since then.

The depths of hatred for the United States in North Korea is perfectly understandable given what happened there in the late 1940s/1950s, but unlike Iraq and Afghanistan I think most people would have accepted some form of proactive intervention as justifiable some years ago. Sadly they left it too late and I don't think you can blame Trump for this current crisis. As things stand you could say he has succeeded in putting extra pressure on China to take sanctions more seriously which may be the way forward, though lord knows how this is eventually going to play out.