|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 12 2017 02:36 TheTenthDoc wrote:
In hindsight I'm not sure why people (including me) really believed there was even a smidgeon of a chance of isolationist President Trump with respect to foreign adventurism. Between his drum beating against ISIS, an executive thirsting for war, and how quick he is to react to...well...anything, it should have never seemed possible.
Hilarious thing is that everyone was saying exactly what kind of President Trump would be before the election.
He was a gamble.
Except people thought that meant he would either be terrible or amazing, instead of the actual reality of every decision he makes being a crap shoot.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 12 2017 03:07 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2017 03:04 LegalLord wrote:On April 12 2017 03:01 LightSpectra wrote:
I'm actually quite terrified that Trump is going to find some way to cause a war with North Korea. I'd like to think his advisors are not complete morons that would goad him into military action, but... It's the advisors who are probably pushing it. And even if they're not stupid, military folk tend to push for war. Usually you have more civilian leadership to keep them in perspective but our leader is kind of a clown... War with a middle eastern country that no one else around them cares about anyway is one thing. Reducing Seoul to rubble because you want to have something to do is another.
Problem is that everyone around Syria cares about Syria. It's a geopolitical playground at this point for both regional and larger powers.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 12 2017 03:08 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2017 03:04 LegalLord wrote:On April 12 2017 03:01 LightSpectra wrote:
I'm actually quite terrified that Trump is going to find some way to cause a war with North Korea. I'd like to think his advisors are not complete morons that would goad him into military action, but... It's the advisors who are probably pushing it. And even if they're not stupid, military folk tend to push for war. Usually you have more civilian leadership to keep them in perspective but our leader is kind of a clown... The military officers are probably keenly aware that there's nothing to gain from a war with NK except millions of dead South Koreans and possibly a nuke. At least I hope.
Generally military folk understand the need to be "strong" and project force. Problem is that that's often the only thing they understand...
|
On April 12 2017 03:09 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2017 03:07 Gorsameth wrote:On April 12 2017 03:04 LegalLord wrote:On April 12 2017 03:01 LightSpectra wrote:
I'm actually quite terrified that Trump is going to find some way to cause a war with North Korea. I'd like to think his advisors are not complete morons that would goad him into military action, but... It's the advisors who are probably pushing it. And even if they're not stupid, military folk tend to push for war. Usually you have more civilian leadership to keep them in perspective but our leader is kind of a clown... War with a middle eastern country that no one else around them cares about anyway is one thing. Reducing Seoul to rubble because you want to have something to do is another. Problem is that everyone around Syria cares about Syria. It's a geopolitical playground at this point for both regional and larger powers.
I understand that. Nobody is saying millions of Syrians are worth less than millions of South Koreans or Japanese. The difference is killing millions with an artillery barrage or nuclear weapon happens in one second, whereas bleeding out from a civil war happens over years.
|
I find it amusing that everyone believes that advisers are pushing Trump to war. This is the guy who said he would fire on Iranian ships for making rude gestures at US warships. This is how Trump shows he is tough, by threatening to do things. People predicted the twitter threats against other nations during the election. This is the least surprising thing about the Trump presidency.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 12 2017 03:12 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2017 03:09 LegalLord wrote:On April 12 2017 03:07 Gorsameth wrote:On April 12 2017 03:04 LegalLord wrote:On April 12 2017 03:01 LightSpectra wrote:
I'm actually quite terrified that Trump is going to find some way to cause a war with North Korea. I'd like to think his advisors are not complete morons that would goad him into military action, but... It's the advisors who are probably pushing it. And even if they're not stupid, military folk tend to push for war. Usually you have more civilian leadership to keep them in perspective but our leader is kind of a clown... War with a middle eastern country that no one else around them cares about anyway is one thing. Reducing Seoul to rubble because you want to have something to do is another. Problem is that everyone around Syria cares about Syria. It's a geopolitical playground at this point for both regional and larger powers. I understand that. Nobody is saying millions of Syrians are worth less than millions of South Koreans or Japanese. The difference is killing millions with an artillery barrage or nuclear weapon happens in one second, whereas bleeding out from a civil war happens over years.
One is a rogue threat, the other is a combination of a great power threat and a terrorist threat. The consequences of the Syria matter have had a very large spillover into Europe, not to mention the surrounding region. All it would take for it to go nuclear is for Russia to ship a few warheads into the area. They already have their nuclear-capable rockets set up in the region.
And war with Iran would be a lot worse than war with Iraq for that matter. Losses would be far higher than, erm, "military optimists" would predict.
|
Firing on Iranian ships is orders of magnitude less a bad idea than attacking North Korea.
|
On April 12 2017 03:12 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2017 03:09 LegalLord wrote:On April 12 2017 03:07 Gorsameth wrote:On April 12 2017 03:04 LegalLord wrote:On April 12 2017 03:01 LightSpectra wrote:
I'm actually quite terrified that Trump is going to find some way to cause a war with North Korea. I'd like to think his advisors are not complete morons that would goad him into military action, but... It's the advisors who are probably pushing it. And even if they're not stupid, military folk tend to push for war. Usually you have more civilian leadership to keep them in perspective but our leader is kind of a clown... War with a middle eastern country that no one else around them cares about anyway is one thing. Reducing Seoul to rubble because you want to have something to do is another. Problem is that everyone around Syria cares about Syria. It's a geopolitical playground at this point for both regional and larger powers. I understand that. Nobody is saying millions of Syrians are worth less than millions of South Koreans or Japanese. The difference is killing millions with an artillery barrage or nuclear weapon happens in one second, whereas bleeding out from a civil war happens over years.
Actually, Milo is saying that. I'd guess there's also a portion of the alt right that agrees with him. And while it is impossible to assign economic value to human life intrinsically, it isn't controversial to say that south Korea has a larger economic worth than Syria.
|
On April 12 2017 03:17 LightSpectra wrote:
Firing on Iranian ships is orders of magnitude less a bad idea than attacking North Korea.
It is an act of war. So it is only slightly less stupid than doing the same thing to NK.
|
Iran doesn't have the capability of killing 10m people in one second.
|
So how are tensions in South Korea right now? We have two unpredictable actors in fat Jong un and orange man
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 12 2017 03:19 biology]major wrote:
So how are tensions in South Korea right now? We have two unpredictable actors in fat Jong un and orange man
Well their president got removed from office and they're in the middle of election season. One of the candidates wants to talk to Kim Jong Un, the other I don't know but is apparently hawkish.
|
On April 12 2017 03:19 LightSpectra wrote:
Iran doesn't have the capability of killing 10m people in one second.
Yes that is correct. But I’m sure there is a military base in the Middle East they could attack and then pull us into a full conflict.
|
Spicer press conference seems to be going as well as expected.
|
On April 12 2017 03:21 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2017 03:19 LightSpectra wrote:
Iran doesn't have the capability of killing 10m people in one second. Yes that is correct. But I’m sure there is a military base in the Middle East they could attack and then pull us into a full conflict.
Maybe I'm being irrational by fearing war with North Korea more than Iran. I'm certainly not saying going to war with Iran/Russia/Syria or some combination thereof would not be absolutely horrific. But I think that's less likely than Trump thinking he can Captain America into North Korea and disarm them.
I think Trump sees himself as Ronald Reagan, who himself pretended to be a trigger-itchy cowboy but in reality was not an extreme warhawk. That being said Reagan never had to deal with a rogue nuclear state, so he's left no precedent for Trump to act on.
On April 12 2017 03:19 biology]major wrote:
So how are tensions in South Korea right now? We have two unpredictable actors in fat Jong un and orange man
Kim Jong-un is not by any means unpredictable. He, and we, know exactly what he can get away with, and he always does everything up to that point.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 12 2017 03:17 LightSpectra wrote:
Firing on Iranian ships is orders of magnitude less a bad idea than attacking North Korea.
Either one will pull the US into a long-term military conflict that will have civilian casualties in the millions. They are both truly idiotic ideas that have become possible because our government is insane.
|
|
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
You forgot to post the context that made it sufficiently spicy.
|
On April 12 2017 03:15 Plansix wrote:
I find it amusing that everyone believes that advisers are pushing Trump to war. This is the guy who said he would fire on Iranian ships for making rude gestures at US warships. This is how Trump shows he is tough, by threatening to do things. People predicted the twitter threats against other nations during the election. This is the least surprising thing about the Trump presidency.
Bruh, Everyone from Hillary to Graham want more escalations in Syria militarily. Trump has to be at least one of the moderating forces. Though now with the "Russians have to stop supporting Assad" line coming out of Trump's admin it looks like that might no longer be the case.
MSNBC lower 3rd
"White House: Hitler didn't "sink to level of using chemical weapons" like Syrian leader (Hitler gassed millions)
Jesus take the wheel.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
All our hopes for preventing war rest with Bannon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
