I don't like it, either but people would be cheering if he did the same with Russia. There's no consistency in the criticism
If Trump starts a process that ends in the deaths of millions of people, in strictly utilitarian terms, where would that leave the U.S.? We would be universally hated for leading the world into a regional apocalypse. This would be a great way for the world to unite against us ever being the leader of the world again.
I don't like it, either but people would be cheering if he did the same with Russia. There's no consistency in the criticism
We would be cheering if Trump threatened "fire and fury," at Russia? Is this a thing you believe?
After watching Trump addressing the press just moments ago, he very much sounds like a man that wants to go to war.
Maybe that is exactly what he wants Kim to think.
I disagree. I don't care what initial in parentheses is attatched to a politician's name tag. Just some decent reasonable leadership. Not going to happen until the money in politics issue addressed. But Russia, c'mon, man! There is some thing going on there. DJT is the only one rowing in the other direction.
Yes, I think that's what would happen. McCain would probably pop an unassisted by Viagra hard on.
And that is why Kim is threatening Guam.
I believe the response by the president of "if you threaten us again we'll nuke you" is the problem. Within hours KJU threatened us again. So Trump created a nuclear red line, it was crossed, and now he's threatening more. How does this move the situation forward in a positive direction?
If Trump starts a process that ends in the deaths of millions of people, in strictly utilitarian terms, where would that leave the U.S.? We would be universally hated for leading the world into a regional apocalypse. This would be a great way for the world to unite against us ever being the leader of the world again.
Not really. The North Korea thing is worse but you wring your hands over strong rhetoric there but also complain about weak rhetoric against Russia for way less.
I don't like it, either but people would be cheering if he did the same with Russia. There's no consistency in the criticism
Who knows?Maybe that is exactly what he wants Kim to think.
It's not really strong rhetoric. It's a schoolyard taunt. It's not well thought out and credible. I keep expecting Trump and Kim to unzip and compare equipment.
Actually, an honest assessment would put most of the blame at the feet of China. They are the ones that have enabled the NK regime for decades. China needs to pull their heads out of their 4th point of contact before things get out of control.
N. Korea started the process-- by directly threatening to nuke the USA.
How should Trump responded? By calm measured words? Maybe. But that is how it has been done for years and we still have the problem.
Both are endowed with small hands!
Oh, he and McMasters must get along fabulously.
Years of hardly anyone dying being replaced with millions of deaths is not progress.
Got any data to back that up? North Korea's Kim Jong Un Is Starving His People to Pay for Nuclear Weapons | Newsweek - 3/23/17
Hardly anyone dying in war between countries. There have been skirmishes between NK and SK where a dozen get taken out, or somebody gets kidnapped, etc. but nothing major.
NK starving citizens is horrible but should SK and Japan lose millions to stop that and institute a new catastrophe?
Trump on his 'fire and fury' warning to North Korea: Maybe statement wasn't tough enough. - ABC News
That's it. That's the whole article. Well, I guess you can't accuse the Associated Press of being too verbose.
You have Trump screaming about fire and fury, Rex Tillerson saying that we can all sleep at night because we're using diplomacy, Seb Gorka* is saying “the idea that Secretary Tillerson is going to discuss military matters is simply nonsensical,” and Mattis is warning North Korea not to "invite destruction onto its people."
It's really great to see cooler heads prevailing in the White House and that they're all on the same page.
*Seriously, who the hell is Seb Gorka?
Not really. The North Korea thing is worse but you wring your hands over strong rhetoric there but also complain about weak rhetoric against Russia for way less.
Years of hardly anyone dying being replaced with millions of deaths is not progress.
Any particular reason why we shouldn't, you know, judge each case on its own merits and avoid silly comparisons of situations that are in fact ENTIRELY different in pretty much every conceivable way?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?