Hall Of Fame
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.Originally Posted by andy6025
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.
Last edited by jackal2; 14-08-2017 at 09:59 PM.
Hall Of Fame
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.
Hall Of Fame
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.
Last edited by jackal2; 14-08-2017 at 11:37 PM.
Hall Of Fame
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?"
Hall Of Fame
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.
Hall Of Fame
....and Mexico, a few times....the last time in 1917.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...-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!!
Last edited by tarquinbeech; 15-08-2017 at 02:16 AM. Reason: finger stuck in a cheese toastie
Hall Of Fame
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.
Last edited by jackal2; 15-08-2017 at 07:45 AM.
Hall Of Fame
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.
Hall Of Fame
It looks like Fat Boy's taken a step back.
Hall Of Fame
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?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote