Members banned from this thread: BRUTALITOPS, The Anonymous, USFREEDOM911, cancel2 2022, PostmodernProphet, Legion, Truth Detector, Legion Troll, Boris The Animal, canceled.2021.2, J Craft, MAGA MAN, CFM, DBCooper, Lightbringer, chink, RB 60, PraiseKek, TOP, excommunicated, AnnieOakley, Tommatthews, Q-Tip, volsrock, Grugore, Rob Larrikin, BodyDouble, ptif219, fandango, United76America, Into the Night, Tkaffen, gfm7175 and Enlightened One |
Rune (11-17-2018)
What-aboutism does not change the fact that your outsized Orange Pig does not know what he is doing, lied his ass off when he said there was no longer a nuclear threat, and is basically a con man who's only skill is to over-promise and under-deliver. That's what con men do.
As far as I am concerned, anyone who took a strong public stance against the Iraq War deserves a Novel Prize. It is history's way of acknowledging the wisdom of people who know dumb, unnecessary, and disastrous wars when they see them.
People like that need to be held out by history as models to emulate - considering the Iraq War was the biggest foreign policy blunder of our generation, resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths, and led to dangerous regional geopolitical chaos that we are still living with nearly two decades later. .
I am not opposed to all wars. I am opposed to a dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.
- Barack Obama, 2002
christiefan915 (11-17-2018), PoliTalker (11-17-2018)
Obama dumped more bombs and killed way more people than Bush ...
Cypress (11-17-2018)
The point is this is what we have tried to tell you. Trump is doing exactly what previous Presidents have done. Kim is doing what Korean leaders do. Trump thought he was going to make progress unlike anyone before him. It was a done deal according to him. N. Korea was no longer a threat. I don’t think this is true. N. Korea is still a threat, there is no peace agreement and the beat goes on. I am happy that Trump achieved getting the remains home.
Cypress (11-17-2018)
1) Trump over-promises and under-delivers. That is not only a character flaw in any competent adult human being - it is a disaster in a President of the United States. Trump basically needs to keep his mouth shut, stop giving these freebie "summits" and publicity to Kim, and Trump basically just needs to let diplomats do all the leg work and make all the decisions. The dim-witted and gullible Trump should play no role at all.
2) Want and example of something that works? Obama's international nuclear agreement with Iran. A comprehensive agreement that involved Europe, Russian and Iran, was relatively robust, included verification and monitoring - and was actually working. We could only wish to have something that good with North Korea
good critique:
the problem was NK was an existential threat- literally there were missiles flying and threats to blow up the US etc.
So there really wasn't time for diplomatic niceties -or working it up thru channels- and the 2 leaders were bombastic and hostile it really took a summit to change that dynamic.
I t can be argued another summit is not called for now. There has been no disclosure by lil Kim of his nukes
so why give another summit if Pompeo can't get that done?
On the other hand what is the loss by another summit since we have de facto recognition?
I see both options from here have pluses and minuses -but the initial summit was needed and successful for
reducing the existential threats that were in play at the time
Bookmarks