(04-30-2018 04:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 04:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 04:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  OO -- I see two steps here. Just like with Sadat/Begin.

Step 1: get the right people at the table to talk. This has *never* happened in the Nork situation, regardless that the two Korean leaders have previously met. Second, there has never been a unilateral concession from the Norks as we are seeing. This step 1 is the absolute biggest step. Took balls of steel for Sadat to go to Jerusalem and speak (prior to Camp David). That was the *first* crack in the Egyptian/Israeli wall of ice that had *ever* happened.

This is the biggest step I have ever seen from Norks; nothing compares to this.

Step 2: get the big 'deal' done. But to get to step 2, you *first* have to overcome step 1. Camp David would have never occurred without Sadat traveling to Jerusalem unilaterally.

The left is fixated on: Since we dont have a step 2, nothing really here. Good boy Donny, for getting step 1 done. But step 1 is a *major* change in the relationship. A drastic *and* major change. I am not downplaying the even more historic issue if the denuclearization occurs, in the slightest. But the left *is* downplaying the major event of these sides having the level of interaction here to a major degree. And it is understandable, since a bellicose loudmouth got that step 1 done.

Everything I have read from a left columnist or politician has been of the form 'Well credit for getting the people together, for whatever it is worth. The real credit is only with denuclearization. And by the way, Trump is a bellicose asshat.'

So yes, getting the step 1 is a BFD. A HFD in fact. The countries of North and South Korea are interacting and talking in a way that is quite frankly, unparalleled for the last 60 some-odd years.

I mean, do you disagree that Trump's attitude may have played a role? In the past, all other president's seemed to know not to poke North Korean for fear of a retaliation. Trump's bellicose nature flew in the face of previous administrations' approach and may have been enough to spook North Korea.

Would you prefer that the left and right adulate him for his statesmen like manner and rhetoric? I'm not sure what else Trump has done differently from previous admins, or than this, that may have encouraged North Korea to the table - do you?

I see Trump 'doing business'. He threatened the global diplomacy equivalent of a company killer lawsuit to get the counterparty to the table. Any major business person knows this, and does this. Especially where there is ground that everyone can get a portion of what they each want, but not all.

Trump imported a brash business strategy to the global diplomatic arena.

Is he a 'statesman'? Far from it. He is pretty fing effective here, though.

Bellicose? maybe. But the roadmap has 'business solution' printed all over it.

Ok, so why the f*** do you have a problem with the left's comments if you agree with them?

Trump has literally threatened North Korea with a "bigger button," has rattled his saber multiple times, made fun of "Little Rocket Man," and so on. If that isn't bellicose, then I don't know what is. But as others have noted - that approach appears to have helped get this meeting done and started moving the process forward.

It's a pretty good analysis that a new approach that many others shied away from because of the potential risks (actually starting a nuclear war), seems to be working.

Do you find comments of "If you launch missiles at Guam we will shoot back" *after* the Norks said they would shoot at Guam to be 'saber rattling"?

I find 'saber rattling' to be offensive (as opposed to defensive) in nature. I dont find someone who says, after being threatened with being punched, I will punch you back so hard it'll make your head spin to be 'saber rattling'.

If Trump threatened violence unprovoked or violence in the absence of countering violence, I think that would be more 'saber rattling'. If we are characterizing our intent to defend our forces and our commitments to the sovereignty of both Japan and South Korea, I would not necessarily characterize that as 'saber rattling'.

(04-30-2018 04:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 03:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Did you read the article? I see nothing that talks about not giving Trump credit. Instead, it's an analysis that highlights the difficulties of denuclearization, specifically through the lens of these talks.
It even specifically states in the article:

Quote:There is little question, senior officials and analysts said, that the American-led sanctions, combined with Mr. Trump’s bellicose vows to rain “fire and fury” on North Korea if it threatened the American homeland, helped bring Mr. Kim to the table.

Sorry, not seeing how this is spin, unless you are suggesting that:
1) Trump ripping up the Iran deal is not something that would hurt potential N. Korea talks
2) N. and S. Korea resuming regular diplomatic and trade relations would not make it more difficult for us to use economic sanctions
3) Threatening military action against a country that is trying to extend an olive branch to its sworn enemy is easy

All I am suggesting is that focusing on Trump's potential loss of leverage instead of the potential upside is trying to belittle his accomplishment. Leverage is something that you lose when you use it. So you have to use it at the right point to get maximum return. You might call it the art of the deal, for want of a better term.

Is that the only article the NYTimes wrote on the matter? Did they not write anything on the potential upside?

If that was the only article, then you're right, and that's a huge problem.

If not, then what a superficial comment.

(04-30-2018 05:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Is that the only article the NYTimes wrote on the matter? Did they not write anything on the potential upside?
If that was the only article, then you're right, and that's a huge problem.
If not, then what a superficial comment.

Probably not their only article, but I don't read that rag, so I don't know.

But superficial or not, why make the comment at all?

(04-30-2018 04:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 04:34 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 04:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 04:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  OO -- I see two steps here. Just like with Sadat/Begin.

Step 1: get the right people at the table to talk. This has *never* happened in the Nork situation, regardless that the two Korean leaders have previously met. Second, there has never been a unilateral concession from the Norks as we are seeing. This step 1 is the absolute biggest step. Took balls of steel for Sadat to go to Jerusalem and speak (prior to Camp David). That was the *first* crack in the Egyptian/Israeli wall of ice that had *ever* happened.

This is the biggest step I have ever seen from Norks; nothing compares to this.

Step 2: get the big 'deal' done. But to get to step 2, you *first* have to overcome step 1. Camp David would have never occurred without Sadat traveling to Jerusalem unilaterally.

The left is fixated on: Since we dont have a step 2, nothing really here. Good boy Donny, for getting step 1 done. But step 1 is a *major* change in the relationship. A drastic *and* major change. I am not downplaying the even more historic issue if the denuclearization occurs, in the slightest. But the left *is* downplaying the major event of these sides having the level of interaction here to a major degree. And it is understandable, since a bellicose loudmouth got that step 1 done.

Everything I have read from a left columnist or politician has been of the form 'Well credit for getting the people together, for whatever it is worth. The real credit is only with denuclearization. And by the way, Trump is a bellicose asshat.'

So yes, getting the step 1 is a BFD. A HFD in fact. The countries of North and South Korea are interacting and talking in a way that is quite frankly, unparalleled for the last 60 some-odd years.

I mean, do you disagree that Trump's attitude may have played a role? In the past, all other president's seemed to know not to poke North Korean for fear of a retaliation. Trump's bellicose nature flew in the face of previous administrations' approach and may have been enough to spook North Korea.

Would you prefer that the left and right adulate him for his statesmen like manner and rhetoric? I'm not sure what else Trump has done differently from previous admins, or than this, that may have encouraged North Korea to the table - do you?

Weird. If he gets results through negotiation without firing a shot, isn't that preferable?

He's the least warlike president we've had in decades, and yet he's called "bellicose", while presidents who talk peace but rack up huge body counts are lauded for ending dictatorships and spreading democracy. Orwell was right, "War is Peace".

What's weird?

I never said anything was preferable one way of the other. Since you ask, it's 100% preferable that we get results without military incursion. Trump's remarks to the press and on Twitter have been very saber rattling, and more so than presidents in the past with regards to North Korea. He has lived up to the definition of bellicose in that regard. He seems VERY willing to engage.

I would definitely not call him the least warlike president - he's already struck Syria twice.

You have a point about previous presidents who talked peace and then got us mired in war. But no one today laud's them for being peaceful. It seems you are hung up on Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, which was an absolute sham. And I don't see how that has any bearing on this conversation.

I'm talking all presidents since Carter, not Obama specifically. But, since you mention him, his body count was appalling. Others have been worse.

My measure is body count and levels of destruction. Trump's two strikes on Syria were largely symbolic. For the first one, the Syrians were warned in advance. If you don't think he's the least warlike, name one since Carter than is less so.

(04-30-2018 05:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Do you find comments of "If you launch missiles at Guam we will shoot back" *after* the Norks said they would shoot at Guam to be 'saber rattling"?

I find 'saber rattling' to be offensive (as opposed to defensive) in nature. I dont find someone who says, after being threatened with being punched, I will punch you back so hard it'll make your head spin to be 'saber rattling'.

If Trump threatened violence unprovoked or violence in the absence of countering violence, I think that would be more 'saber rattling'. If we are characterizing our intent to defend our forces and our commitments to the sovereignty of both Japan and South Korea, I would not necessarily characterize that as 'saber rattling'.

Saber rattling is when threaten military force or display that force. Whether it is provoked or unprovoked isn't important, IMO. And that's because once can respond to saber rattling in more diplomatic manners or through threats that aren't militaristic in nature.

For example, when Kim Jong Un rattled his saber about having a nuclear button on his desk, Trump could have verbally pushed for denuclearization or threatened further economic sanctions - but instead he rattled his saber and talked about how he had a bigger button. All of the other instances were similar - instead of choosing any other option, Trump went with force.

This isn't an approach I prefer, but it may have been what helped push Kim Jong Un towards the negotiation table. And if that's the case, then all the credit to him.

But don't try and argue that Trump isn't saber rattling, that's just silly. That's what he did, but hey, it looks like it's been effective.

(04-30-2018 05:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 05:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Is that the only article the NYTimes wrote on the matter? Did they not write anything on the potential upside?
If that was the only article, then you're right, and that's a huge problem.
If not, then what a superficial comment.

Probably not their only article, but I don't read that rag, so I don't know.

But superficial or not, why make the comment at all?

Did you read it?

It is an interesting analysis on the situation and helps explains the difficult nature of these negotiations, especially because some of Trump's goals appear to hinge upon leverage that is eroding, ironically due to the success of the meeting. It helps to provide a fuller picture of the situation so people can better understand the entire situation and the competing interests.

So newspapers shouldn't write articles that analyze current events?

(04-30-2018 05:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 05:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Do you find comments of "If you launch missiles at Guam we will shoot back" *after* the Norks said they would shoot at Guam to be 'saber rattling"?
I find 'saber rattling' to be offensive (as opposed to defensive) in nature. I dont find someone who says, after being threatened with being punched, I will punch you back so hard it'll make your head spin to be 'saber rattling'.
If Trump threatened violence unprovoked or violence in the absence of countering violence, I think that would be more 'saber rattling'. If we are characterizing our intent to defend our forces and our commitments to the sovereignty of both Japan and South Korea, I would not necessarily characterize that as 'saber rattling'.

Saber rattling is when threaten military force or display that force. Whether it is provoked or unprovoked isn't important, IMO. And that's because once can respond to saber rattling in more diplomatic manners or through threats that aren't militaristic in nature.
For example, when Kim Jong Un rattled his saber about having a nuclear button on his desk, Trump could have verbally pushed for denuclearization or threatened further economic sanctions - but instead he rattled his saber and talked about how he had a bigger button. All of the other instances were similar - instead of choosing any other option, Trump went with force.
This isn't an approach I prefer, but it may have been what helped push Kim Jong Un towards the negotiation table. And if that's the case, then all the credit to him.
But don't try and argue that Trump isn't saber rattling, that's just silly. That's what he did, but hey, it looks like it's been effective.

We've done those other things. They didn't work. This has, at least so far. Which is further than any of those others got us.

(04-30-2018 05:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 04:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 04:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 04:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  OO -- I see two steps here. Just like with Sadat/Begin.

Step 1: get the right people at the table to talk. This has *never* happened in the Nork situation, regardless that the two Korean leaders have previously met. Second, there has never been a unilateral concession from the Norks as we are seeing. This step 1 is the absolute biggest step. Took balls of steel for Sadat to go to Jerusalem and speak (prior to Camp David). That was the *first* crack in the Egyptian/Israeli wall of ice that had *ever* happened.

This is the biggest step I have ever seen from Norks; nothing compares to this.

Step 2: get the big 'deal' done. But to get to step 2, you *first* have to overcome step 1. Camp David would have never occurred without Sadat traveling to Jerusalem unilaterally.

The left is fixated on: Since we dont have a step 2, nothing really here. Good boy Donny, for getting step 1 done. But step 1 is a *major* change in the relationship. A drastic *and* major change. I am not downplaying the even more historic issue if the denuclearization occurs, in the slightest. But the left *is* downplaying the major event of these sides having the level of interaction here to a major degree. And it is understandable, since a bellicose loudmouth got that step 1 done.

Everything I have read from a left columnist or politician has been of the form 'Well credit for getting the people together, for whatever it is worth. The real credit is only with denuclearization. And by the way, Trump is a bellicose asshat.'

So yes, getting the step 1 is a BFD. A HFD in fact. The countries of North and South Korea are interacting and talking in a way that is quite frankly, unparalleled for the last 60 some-odd years.

I mean, do you disagree that Trump's attitude may have played a role? In the past, all other president's seemed to know not to poke North Korean for fear of a retaliation. Trump's bellicose nature flew in the face of previous administrations' approach and may have been enough to spook North Korea.

Would you prefer that the left and right adulate him for his statesmen like manner and rhetoric? I'm not sure what else Trump has done differently from previous admins, or than this, that may have encouraged North Korea to the table - do you?

I see Trump 'doing business'. He threatened the global diplomacy equivalent of a company killer lawsuit to get the counterparty to the table. Any major business person knows this, and does this. Especially where there is ground that everyone can get a portion of what they each want, but not all.

Trump imported a brash business strategy to the global diplomatic arena.

Is he a 'statesman'? Far from it. He is pretty fing effective here, though.

Bellicose? maybe. But the roadmap has 'business solution' printed all over it.

Ok, so why the f*** do you have a problem with the left's comments if you agree with them?

For the third time --- I find Trump getting the parties to the table to be a huge fing deal. Got it? Not the mealy-mouth **** of 'well there has to be a complete deal' before there is a lot of credit.

As for 'saber rattling', I guess (as explained above) that I don't find a response of "I will punch *you* back way harder than you punch me' a 'saber rattle'.

Or bellicose.

Someone threatened my company with a lawsuit first, I find it odd that I would be termed 'bellicose' for saying 'go for it sparkles, we will see who punches harder'.

Sorry, the continued N. Korean program of tossing missiles everywhere, *and* explicitly threatening US forces in Guam *is* bellicose. Yet people (like you) are pissed that we have the *audacity* to say, 'IF you throw that punch, I will clean your fing clock' as 'bellicose'.....

Quote:Trump has literally threatened North Korea with a "bigger button," has rattled his saber multiple times, made fun of "Little Rocket Man," and so on.

I suggest you let some real world into your vacuum there, as each of those actions was not made in a vacuum as you forget to mention.

Quote:If that isn't bellicose, then I don't know what is.

Yep, Trump told Kim that Kim was a douche. After Kim did a lot of douchey stuff. Again, sometimes showing that you have a backbone is better than bending over at a whim of a teenager going through a temper tantrum. That latter strategy did not work.

Glad to know my parents were 'bellicose' when they grounded me after being a douchebag.

Quote:But as others have noted - that approach appears to have helped get this meeting done and started moving the process forward.

It's a pretty good analysis that a new approach that many others shied away from because of the potential risks (actually starting a nuclear war), seems to be working.

In the long run, Trump knew what the leverage points were. Kim was not going to commit suicide. Trump told him that his actions were not tolerable, and would be met. Kim kept throwing temper tantrums.

But the 'win' for Kim is that he keeps his gulag fiefdom. And he gets an upside. But it took an adult to tell him what the consequences would be if he threw a punch.

And Kim gets the advantage if every time he opens his mouth, Trump isnt going to belittle him like the wet-behind-ears twenty-something year old he typically acts like, and might be treated as an adult. But then again, the art of the deal....

(04-30-2018 05:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 05:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 05:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Is that the only article the NYTimes wrote on the matter? Did they not write anything on the potential upside?
If that was the only article, then you're right, and that's a huge problem.
If not, then what a superficial comment.

Probably not their only article, but I don't read that rag, so I don't know.
But superficial or not, why make the comment at all?

Did you read it?
It is an interesting analysis on the situation and helps explains the difficult nature of these negotiations, especially because some of Trump's goals appear to hinge upon leverage that is eroding, ironically due to the success of the meeting. It helps to provide a fuller picture of the situation so people can better understand the entire situation and the competing interests.
So newspapers shouldn't write articles that analyze current events?

No, of course newspapers should write articles that analyze current events. But there should be a balance, and this comes across as the NYT being all too eager to find whatever wet blanket they can to throw over these developments.

If we get peace in North Korea, a lot of the anti-Trump rhetoric is going to fall on ears that are more deaf than before. This is clearly not a result that the NYT wants, so let's find anything we can to minimize the accomplishment.

The main thrust of the article something that is pretty well understood in the business world. Once you use leverage, it lessens the leverage. So if you use it, you had better get the result you want. Here, the attitude seems to be let's talk about the leverage lost if we don't get the deal from this, since talking about what happens if we do get a deal is just too painful.

I like the cartoon I saw today, "Some federal judge in Hawaii has issued an injunction against ending the Korean War." I actually think some on the left would rather see the Koreas stay divided than to see Trump succeed at anything.

Remember the last time we had a leader who rattled sabers? "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." How did that work out? For Mr. Gorbachev? For the wall? And for that saber-rattling president?

(04-30-2018 05:12 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 04:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 04:34 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 04:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 04:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  OO -- I see two steps here. Just like with Sadat/Begin.

Step 1: get the right people at the table to talk. This has *never* happened in the Nork situation, regardless that the two Korean leaders have previously met. Second, there has never been a unilateral concession from the Norks as we are seeing. This step 1 is the absolute biggest step. Took balls of steel for Sadat to go to Jerusalem and speak (prior to Camp David). That was the *first* crack in the Egyptian/Israeli wall of ice that had *ever* happened.

This is the biggest step I have ever seen from Norks; nothing compares to this.

Step 2: get the big 'deal' done. But to get to step 2, you *first* have to overcome step 1. Camp David would have never occurred without Sadat traveling to Jerusalem unilaterally.

The left is fixated on: Since we dont have a step 2, nothing really here. Good boy Donny, for getting step 1 done. But step 1 is a *major* change in the relationship. A drastic *and* major change. I am not downplaying the even more historic issue if the denuclearization occurs, in the slightest. But the left *is* downplaying the major event of these sides having the level of interaction here to a major degree. And it is understandable, since a bellicose loudmouth got that step 1 done.

Everything I have read from a left columnist or politician has been of the form 'Well credit for getting the people together, for whatever it is worth. The real credit is only with denuclearization. And by the way, Trump is a bellicose asshat.'

So yes, getting the step 1 is a BFD. A HFD in fact. The countries of North and South Korea are interacting and talking in a way that is quite frankly, unparalleled for the last 60 some-odd years.

I mean, do you disagree that Trump's attitude may have played a role? In the past, all other president's seemed to know not to poke North Korean for fear of a retaliation. Trump's bellicose nature flew in the face of previous administrations' approach and may have been enough to spook North Korea.

Would you prefer that the left and right adulate him for his statesmen like manner and rhetoric? I'm not sure what else Trump has done differently from previous admins, or than this, that may have encouraged North Korea to the table - do you?

Weird. If he gets results through negotiation without firing a shot, isn't that preferable?

He's the least warlike president we've had in decades, and yet he's called "bellicose", while presidents who talk peace but rack up huge body counts are lauded for ending dictatorships and spreading democracy. Orwell was right, "War is Peace".

What's weird?

I never said anything was preferable one way of the other. Since you ask, it's 100% preferable that we get results without military incursion. Trump's remarks to the press and on Twitter have been very saber rattling, and more so than presidents in the past with regards to North Korea. He has lived up to the definition of bellicose in that regard. He seems VERY willing to engage.

I would definitely not call him the least warlike president - he's already struck Syria twice.

You have a point about previous presidents who talked peace and then got us mired in war. But no one today laud's them for being peaceful. It seems you are hung up on Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, which was an absolute sham. And I don't see how that has any bearing on this conversation.

I'm talking all presidents since Carter, not Obama specifically. But, since you mention him, his body count was appalling. Others have been worse.

My measure is body count and levels of destruction. Trump's two strikes on Syria were largely symbolic. For the first one, the Syrians were warned in advance. If you don't think he's the least warlike, name one since Carter than is less so.

So maybe you have a different definition of bellicose? Bellicose is an adjective to describe someone's demeanor. Trump is, without a question, the most aggressive president we've had since Carter. However, demeanor and actions don't have to be directly correlated, and I'd agree that so far, his actions have not met his rhetoric.

Or are you actually being serious in suggesting that Trump has had a more peaceful and less warlike tone than his predecessors? It seems like you don't, though.

It seems like we are at a point in our discourse where people must be on one side of the debate or the other. That, as soon as something that looks like a criticism is lobbed at their team, they must immediately go on the attack.

We're now arguing about something we agree on - how Trump's different approach to foreign policy has likely helped push North Korea to meet with South Korea, and hopefully begin a peace process. But somehow that is lost when we discuss what Trump did differently, and that is, without question, act more aggressively and brashly towards North Korea than any of our recent presidents.

(04-30-2018 05:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 05:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 04:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 04:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 04:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  OO -- I see two steps here. Just like with Sadat/Begin.

Step 1: get the right people at the table to talk. This has *never* happened in the Nork situation, regardless that the two Korean leaders have previously met. Second, there has never been a unilateral concession from the Norks as we are seeing. This step 1 is the absolute biggest step. Took balls of steel for Sadat to go to Jerusalem and speak (prior to Camp David). That was the *first* crack in the Egyptian/Israeli wall of ice that had *ever* happened.

This is the biggest step I have ever seen from Norks; nothing compares to this.

Step 2: get the big 'deal' done. But to get to step 2, you *first* have to overcome step 1. Camp David would have never occurred without Sadat traveling to Jerusalem unilaterally.

The left is fixated on: Since we dont have a step 2, nothing really here. Good boy Donny, for getting step 1 done. But step 1 is a *major* change in the relationship. A drastic *and* major change. I am not downplaying the even more historic issue if the denuclearization occurs, in the slightest. But the left *is* downplaying the major event of these sides having the level of interaction here to a major degree. And it is understandable, since a bellicose loudmouth got that step 1 done.

Everything I have read from a left columnist or politician has been of the form 'Well credit for getting the people together, for whatever it is worth. The real credit is only with denuclearization. And by the way, Trump is a bellicose asshat.'

So yes, getting the step 1 is a BFD. A HFD in fact. The countries of North and South Korea are interacting and talking in a way that is quite frankly, unparalleled for the last 60 some-odd years.

I mean, do you disagree that Trump's attitude may have played a role? In the past, all other president's seemed to know not to poke North Korean for fear of a retaliation. Trump's bellicose nature flew in the face of previous administrations' approach and may have been enough to spook North Korea.

Would you prefer that the left and right adulate him for his statesmen like manner and rhetoric? I'm not sure what else Trump has done differently from previous admins, or than this, that may have encouraged North Korea to the table - do you?

I see Trump 'doing business'. He threatened the global diplomacy equivalent of a company killer lawsuit to get the counterparty to the table. Any major business person knows this, and does this. Especially where there is ground that everyone can get a portion of what they each want, but not all.

Trump imported a brash business strategy to the global diplomatic arena.

Is he a 'statesman'? Far from it. He is pretty fing effective here, though.

Bellicose? maybe. But the roadmap has 'business solution' printed all over it.

Ok, so why the f*** do you have a problem with the left's comments if you agree with them?

For the third time --- I find Trump getting the parties to the table to be a huge fing deal. Got it? Not the mealy-mouth **** of 'well there has to be a complete deal' before there is a lot of credit.

As for 'saber rattling', I guess (as explained above) that I don't find a response of "I will punch *you* back way harder than you punch me' a 'saber rattle'.

Or bellicose.

Someone threatened my company with a lawsuit first, I find it odd that I would be termed 'bellicose' for saying 'go for it sparkles, we will see who punches harder'.

Sorry, the continued N. Korean program of tossing missiles everywhere, *and* explicitly threatening US forces in Guam *is* bellicose. Yet people (like you) are pissed that we have the *audacity* to say, 'IF you throw that punch, I will clean your fing clock' as 'bellicose'.....

Quote:Trump has literally threatened North Korea with a "bigger button," has rattled his saber multiple times, made fun of "Little Rocket Man," and so on.

I suggest you let some real world into your vacuum there, as each of those actions was not made in a vacuum as you forget to mention.

Quote:If that isn't bellicose, then I don't know what is.

Yep, Trump told Kim that Kim was a douche. After Kim did a lot of douchey stuff. Again, sometimes showing that you have a backbone is better than bending over at a whim of a teenager going through a temper tantrum. That latter strategy did not work.

Glad to know my parents were 'bellicose' when they grounded me after being a douchebag.

Quote:But as others have noted - that approach appears to have helped get this meeting done and started moving the process forward.

It's a pretty good analysis that a new approach that many others shied away from because of the potential risks (actually starting a nuclear war), seems to be working.

In the long run, Trump knew what the leverage points were. Kim was not going to commit suicide. Trump told him that his actions were not tolerable, and would be met. Kim kept throwing temper tantrums.

But the 'win' for Kim is that he keeps his gulag fiefdom. And he gets an upside. But it took an adult to tell him what the consequences would be if he threw a punch.

And Kim gets the advantage if every time he opens his mouth, Trump isnt going to belittle him like the wet-behind-ears twenty-something year old he typically acts like, and might be treated as an adult. But then again, the art of the deal....

This is insanity.

If having a President say that we will defend both our forces and our sovereign commitments to meet first force with a response, I dont have a problem with that.

Nor do I find that 'bellicose'. Nor do I find that 'saber rattling'. But that is the power of words.

I find that concept that we will defend both our forces and our sovereign commitments to meet first force with a response to be correct and admirable. And I commend the express views to do that, even when uttered as crudely as "I have a bigger button."

But heck, lets use 'bad' words to describe it. But, then again, we come across the power of the backhanded compliment that we are discussing.

Love the power of words......

(04-30-2018 05:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 05:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 05:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 05:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Is that the only article the NYTimes wrote on the matter? Did they not write anything on the potential upside?
If that was the only article, then you're right, and that's a huge problem.
If not, then what a superficial comment.

Probably not their only article, but I don't read that rag, so I don't know.
But superficial or not, why make the comment at all?

Did you read it?
It is an interesting analysis on the situation and helps explains the difficult nature of these negotiations, especially because some of Trump's goals appear to hinge upon leverage that is eroding, ironically due to the success of the meeting. It helps to provide a fuller picture of the situation so people can better understand the entire situation and the competing interests.
So newspapers shouldn't write articles that analyze current events?

No, of course newspapers should write articles that analyze current events. But there should be a balance, and this comes across as the NYT being all too eager to find whatever wet blanket they can to throw over these developments.

If we get peace in North Korea, a lot of the anti-Trump rhetoric is going to fall on ears that are more deaf than before. This is clearly not a result that the NYT wants, so let's find anything we can to minimize the accomplishment.

The main thrust of the article something that is pretty well understood in the business world. Once you use leverage, it lessens the leverage. So if you use it, you had better get the result you want. Here, the attitude seems to be let's talk about the leverage lost if we don't get the deal from this, since talking about what happens if we do get a deal is just too painful.

I like the cartoon I saw today, "Some federal judge in Hawaii has issued an injunction against ending the Korean War." I actually think some on the left would rather see the Koreas stay divided than to see Trump succeed at anything.

Remember the last time we had a leader who rattled sabers? "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." How did that work out? For Mr. Gorbachev? For the wall? And for that saber-rattling president?

Ok, so because something is well understood in the business world means we shouldn't write articles on it? Again, your criticism of this article in the NYTimes is incredibly superficial.

And to your last point, what is your point? I've already admitted, multiple times, that the saber rattling appears to have worked. The bellicose rhetoric appears to have worked. People on the left have too! I even provided a source for it!

Why does it seem like y'all can't understand that people can both describe someone as, in this case, bellicose, but also recognize that, in this case, it turned out not to be a bad thing?

(04-30-2018 05:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 05:12 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 04:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 04:34 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 04:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I mean, do you disagree that Trump's attitude may have played a role? In the past, all other president's seemed to know not to poke North Korean for fear of a retaliation. Trump's bellicose nature flew in the face of previous administrations' approach and may have been enough to spook North Korea.

Would you prefer that the left and right adulate him for his statesmen like manner and rhetoric? I'm not sure what else Trump has done differently from previous admins, or than this, that may have encouraged North Korea to the table - do you?

Weird. If he gets results through negotiation without firing a shot, isn't that preferable?

He's the least warlike president we've had in decades, and yet he's called "bellicose", while presidents who talk peace but rack up huge body counts are lauded for ending dictatorships and spreading democracy. Orwell was right, "War is Peace".

What's weird?

I never said anything was preferable one way of the other. Since you ask, it's 100% preferable that we get results without military incursion. Trump's remarks to the press and on Twitter have been very saber rattling, and more so than presidents in the past with regards to North Korea. He has lived up to the definition of bellicose in that regard. He seems VERY willing to engage.

I would definitely not call him the least warlike president - he's already struck Syria twice.

You have a point about previous presidents who talked peace and then got us mired in war. But no one today laud's them for being peaceful. It seems you are hung up on Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, which was an absolute sham. And I don't see how that has any bearing on this conversation.

I'm talking all presidents since Carter, not Obama specifically. But, since you mention him, his body count was appalling. Others have been worse.

My measure is body count and levels of destruction. Trump's two strikes on Syria were largely symbolic. For the first one, the Syrians were warned in advance. If you don't think he's the least warlike, name one since Carter than is less so.

So maybe you have a different definition of bellicose? Bellicose is an adjective to describe someone's demeanor. Trump is, without a question, the most aggressive president we've had since Carter. However, demeanor and actions don't have to be directly correlated, and I'd agree that so far, his actions have not met his rhetoric.

Or are you actually being serious in suggesting that Trump has had a more peaceful and less warlike tone than his predecessors? It seems like you don't, though.

It seems like we are at a point in our discourse where people must be on one side of the debate or the other. That, as soon as something that looks like a criticism is lobbed at their team, they must immediately go on the attack.

We're now arguing about something we agree on - how Trump's different approach to foreign policy has likely helped push North Korea to meet with South Korea, and hopefully begin a peace process. But somehow that is lost when we discuss what Trump did differently, and that is, without question, act more aggressively and brashly towards North Korea than any of our recent presidents.

I'm arguing that I don't give a &^%$ about their "tone." I care about their actions and the results.

Does it actually bother you more that Trump is bellicose, than that prior presidents have been more violent? If so, then what's wrong with you?

(04-30-2018 05:37 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 05:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 05:12 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 04:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 04:34 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Weird. If he gets results through negotiation without firing a shot, isn't that preferable?

He's the least warlike president we've had in decades, and yet he's called "bellicose", while presidents who talk peace but rack up huge body counts are lauded for ending dictatorships and spreading democracy. Orwell was right, "War is Peace".

What's weird?

I never said anything was preferable one way of the other. Since you ask, it's 100% preferable that we get results without military incursion. Trump's remarks to the press and on Twitter have been very saber rattling, and more so than presidents in the past with regards to North Korea. He has lived up to the definition of bellicose in that regard. He seems VERY willing to engage.

I would definitely not call him the least warlike president - he's already struck Syria twice.

You have a point about previous presidents who talked peace and then got us mired in war. But no one today laud's them for being peaceful. It seems you are hung up on Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, which was an absolute sham. And I don't see how that has any bearing on this conversation.

I'm talking all presidents since Carter, not Obama specifically. But, since you mention him, his body count was appalling. Others have been worse.

My measure is body count and levels of destruction. Trump's two strikes on Syria were largely symbolic. For the first one, the Syrians were warned in advance. If you don't think he's the least warlike, name one since Carter than is less so.

So maybe you have a different definition of bellicose? Bellicose is an adjective to describe someone's demeanor. Trump is, without a question, the most aggressive president we've had since Carter. However, demeanor and actions don't have to be directly correlated, and I'd agree that so far, his actions have not met his rhetoric.

Or are you actually being serious in suggesting that Trump has had a more peaceful and less warlike tone than his predecessors? It seems like you don't, though.

It seems like we are at a point in our discourse where people must be on one side of the debate or the other. That, as soon as something that looks like a criticism is lobbed at their team, they must immediately go on the attack.

We're now arguing about something we agree on - how Trump's different approach to foreign policy has likely helped push North Korea to meet with South Korea, and hopefully begin a peace process. But somehow that is lost when we discuss what Trump did differently, and that is, without question, act more aggressively and brashly towards North Korea than any of our recent presidents.

I'm arguing that I don't give a &^%$ about their "tone." I care about their actions and the results.

Does it actually bother you more that Trump is bellicose, than that prior presidents have been more violent? If so, then what's wrong with you?

Ah, so then why argue about him being called bellicose if you actually do see him as being so? Seems a bit distracting.

Trump has proven so far that, despite his rhetoric, he isn't casual with the use of force, which is great. That isn't saying I think other presidents were casual with their use of force either, but it was more surprising when they did decide to act.

And I've been bothered by his rhetoric because it seems more likely to result in conflict. I mean, do you really want our commander in chief being so cavalier about the use of nuclear weapons?

But words don't equal action, and so while I'll still be bothered by his rhetoric going forward, because I don't know if it will always turn out to be just talk, I can recognize that, so far with North Korea, the bark may have been enough to get a good result.

But to answer your last question directly - at the moment, no, it does not bother me more that Trump has been more bellicose, yet other presidents have gotten us into more armed conflicts. And, in the context of this conversation, I've never suggested that - all I've done is describe Trump's rhetoric accurately.

By the way Lad, the definition of "bellicose":

Quote:inclined or eager to fight; aggressively hostile; belligerent; pugnacious.

Bellicose

Please do state where Trump is 'inclined or eager to fight'? Seems to me that no physical actions have been taken with Kim, even though in international law the missile shots very easily could have been shot down....

Please state where Trump is 'aggressively hostile'? I think my response pointing out the aggressive use as opposed to responding to a threat is spot on here.

Please state where Trump has been 'belligerent" (hostile and aggressive) ? By the way, remember that Trump would have absolutely within international law to splash Kim's rocket tests over Japan. Seems to be far more restrained in action than 'aggressive'.

Please state where Trump has been 'pugnacious'?

The problem with the view on the left is that responding to explicit threats with your commitment to your forces and to your sovereign commitments is that reiterating that (in a crude manner) is now defined by you as 'bellicose'.

I guess saying that United States will respond to first force with force is viewed as "belligerent", "pugnacious", "aggressively hostile", and "inclined and eager to fight" by you. Got it.

Sorry, your characterization of 'bellicose' really isnt as accurate as you seemingly think. But please feel free to respond with your pithy "this is insanity" spark you noted before.

(04-30-2018 05:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  By the way Lad, the definition of "bellicose":

Quote:inclined or eager to fight; aggressively hostile; belligerent; pugnacious.

Bellicose

Please do state where Trump is 'inclined or eager to fight'? Seems to me that no physical actions have been taken with Kim, even though in international law the missile shots very easily could have been shot down....

Please state where Trump is 'aggressively hostile'? I think my response pointing out the aggressive use as opposed to responding to a threat is spot on here.

Please state where Trump has been 'belligerent" (hostile and aggressive) ? By the way, remember that Trump would have absolutely within international law to splash Kim's rocket tests over Japan. Seems to be far more restrained in action than 'aggressive'.

Please state where Trump has been 'pugnacious'?

The problem with the view on the left is that responding to explicit threats with your commitment to your forces and to your sovereign commitments is that reiterating that (in a crude manner) is now defined by you as 'bellicose'.

I guess saying that United States will respond to first force with force is viewed as "belligerent", "pugnacious", "aggressively hostile", and "inclined and eager to fight" by you. Got it.

Sorry, your characterization of 'bellicose' really isnt as accurate as you seemingly think. But please feel free to respond with your pithy "this is insanity" spark you noted before.

No, my characterization is accurate. You have to preface each line so much that it proves that it's just your viewpoint of how the US should respond that makes you think the shoe doesn't fit.

You have to preface Trump's language with the fact that he was provoked to suggest that he hasn't been bellicose.

When Trump was provoked - when he said he had a bigger button and when he said he would rain fire and fury on North Korea (or that it wasn't tough enough) - he chose to be aggressive. And when he told the UN he would totally destroy North Korea, and that Rocket Man was on a suicide mission, he wasn't even really provoked (I'd definitely call that aggressively hostile).

Also, are you really trying to argue that Trump isn't pugnacious? That guy will get into a Twitter feud with anyone!

The issue it seems, is that we apparently disagree with how the leader of the US should react to hostilities. I go with the Teddy Roosevelt approach of walking softly and carrying a big stick. Trump's bellicose approach that bellies that may just work, and you appear to favor that and be less inclined to label it with an adjective that has a negative connotation.

And to make an analogy, if I want to avoid a fight with someone, and they're acting aggressively towards me, I'm more likely to insight a fight by responding with force than by being passive and trying to calm the situation down. Yes, there's a chance that ramping up the rhetoric might cause them to back down, but it's a lesser chance.

(04-30-2018 06:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 05:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  By the way Lad, the definition of "bellicose":

Quote:inclined or eager to fight; aggressively hostile; belligerent; pugnacious.

Bellicose

Please do state where Trump is 'inclined or eager to fight'? Seems to me that no physical actions have been taken with Kim, even though in international law the missile shots very easily could have been shot down....

Please state where Trump is 'aggressively hostile'? I think my response pointing out the aggressive use as opposed to responding to a threat is spot on here.

Please state where Trump has been 'belligerent" (hostile and aggressive) ? By the way, remember that Trump would have absolutely within international law to splash Kim's rocket tests over Japan. Seems to be far more restrained in action than 'aggressive'.

Please state where Trump has been 'pugnacious'?

The problem with the view on the left is that responding to explicit threats with your commitment to your forces and to your sovereign commitments is that reiterating that (in a crude manner) is now defined by you as 'bellicose'.

I guess saying that United States will respond to first force with force is viewed as "belligerent", "pugnacious", "aggressively hostile", and "inclined and eager to fight" by you. Got it.

Sorry, your characterization of 'bellicose' really isnt as accurate as you seemingly think. But please feel free to respond with your pithy "this is insanity" spark you noted before.

No, my characterization is accurate. You have to preface each line so much that it proves that it's just your viewpoint of how the US should respond that makes you think the shoe doesn't fit.

Not at all Lad. I am showing the term bellicose means aggressively hostile. "Aggressively" being a key word here. You seemingly overlook that distinction. Good for you.

You seemingly choose to paint anything that is 'not in diplomatic norms' as 'bellicose'.

Shooting a missile over another sovereign nation. Bellicose.
Threatening to target the navy and base of another nation. Bellicose.

Bellicose means actively and aggressively seeking a fight. And it is the word the left (you) have chosen to paint Trump with.

Telling another that you will defend yourself, and that you will clean their clock *if* they swing first is not 'aggressively seeking a fight'. In fact, it can be argued that doing so is the antithesis of being bellicose.

Quote:When Trump was provoked - when he said he had a bigger button and when he said he would rain fire and fury on North Korea (or that it wasn't tough enough) - he chose to be aggressive.

I guess when my company is threatened with a suit, and I respond "Bring it on sparkles, you will get your clock cleaned" *that* is being bellicose. Seems like a stretch to me.

Quote:And when he told the UN he would totally destroy North Korea, and that Rocket Man was on a suicide mission, he wasn't even really provoked (I'd definitely call that aggressively hostile).

here is the full quote Lad:

Quote:“The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea,”

Again, how is that seeking conflict? I guess you dont notice the absolutely huge *if* both implied and explicit in that statement.

And you state with absolute certainty that we werent provoked..... Well lets go back over the timeline, shall we?

February 12th, 2017: North Korea launches intermediate-range Polaris-2 (or KN-15) ballistic missile into the East Sea, also known as the Sea of Japan.

March 6th, 2017: North Korea fires four extended-range Scud (or Scud ER) ballistic missiles from just 200 miles from Japan

March 22nd, 2017: North Korea fires a missile from its east cost, but the rocket fails. The missile is believed to be either a Musudan, an intermediate range missile which keeps failing, or the older medium-range Scud ER.

April 5th, 2017: North Korea fires an intermediate-range Hwasong-12 (also known as a KN-17) ballistic missile. Seoul's Joint Chiefs of Staff say in a statement that the missile fired from the North's eastern coastal town of Sinpo flew about 37 miles.

April 16th, 2017: North Korea fires another Hwasong-12 missile from the Sinpo Shipyard.

April 29th, 2017: North Korea launches another Hwasong-12. Once again, the missile explodes shortly after liftoff.

May 15th, 2017: North Korea fires off yet another Hwasong-12, and say this test was successful. They also claim it is capable of delivering a nuclear warhead to U.S. territories. It travelled some 400 miles before touching down in the Sea of Japan.

May 21st, 2017: North Korea fires a medium-range Polaris-2 missile.

May 29th, 2017: North Korea fires a modified Scud missile, its third test in three weeks.

July 4th, 2017: North Korea claims to have successfully tested its first intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM).

July 28th, 2017: North Korea test-fires its second intercontinental ballistic missile,
over Japan.

August 25th, 2017: North Korea fires three unidentified short-range missiles, one of which is believed to have exploded shortly after takeoff. The three missiles were launched in a span of 30 minutes.

August 28th, 2017: North Korea launches a missile that flies over Japan. South Korea said the missile flew 1,677 miles and reached a maximum height of 341 miles.


That is just 2017.

On August 30, N Korea explicitly states that the tests of the last four months are "the first step of the military operation of the (North Korean military) in the Pacific and a meaningful prelude to containing Guam" (i.e. they *explicitly* say they are targeting Guam and the US bases/forces there)

Shortly thereafter Kim announces the next test will be targeting the waters around Guam.

Trumps comments came on September 18.

Are you *really* trying to argue that Trump wasn't provoked? Be serious, and get the dates straight there Lad. At least let the dates and the events intrude into the vacuum that you try and seal Trump's comments to the UN. And perhaps let the rest of Trump's speech leach into as well.... Nothing like a bald ass paraphrase with no context to the rest of the speech, nor any context to the actual real world timeline to really make a point, is there?

Quote:Also, are you really trying to argue that Trump isn't pugnacious? That guy will get into a Twitter feud with anyone!

So you have to resort to a Twitter feud to explain how Trump is actively seeking war. Got it.

Quote:The issue it seems, is that we apparently disagree with how the leader of the US should react to hostilities.

Absolutely. The counter approach of being the appeasement monkey never did work with Kim. Or did I miss that alternative universe?

Should the leader tell Zimbabwe that "if we are forced to defend ourselves or our allies, we will clean your clock"? Probably not. And funny thing, Trump doesnt.

When the US allies, and forces are *explicitly* threatened, yep, he throws down the 'if you want to, do it. But the US will clean your clock.'

The threat was specific and explicit to N. Korea. It said, 'we wont listen to your temper tantrums, Kim. It has never been productive.'

Quote:I go with the Teddy Roosevelt approach of walking softly and carrying a big stick. Trump's bellicose approach that bellies that may just work,

Some people need that stick explained. That doesnt seem to enter into Lad world, but it is part and parcel of the real world.

Quote:and you appear to favor that and be less inclined to label it with an adjective that has a negative connotation.

If Trump actively sought to threaten Korea I would agree with the terminology. You apparently think that anything that isnt kisses, chocolate drops, and unicorns is 'bellicose'. So be it.

Quote:And to make an analogy, if I want to avoid a fight with someone, and they're acting aggressively towards me, I'm more likely to insight a fight by responding with force than by being passive and trying to calm the situation down. Yes, there's a chance that ramping up the rhetoric might cause them to back down, but it's a lesser chance.

You have no understanding of the business world I see. Apply your 'trying to calm the situation down' to a commercial dispute, it doesnt work the vast majority of the time. Seeking leverage to force a conclusion is 'bellicose' I guess....

Edited to add: you state that "[you are] more likely to insight a fight by responding with force than by being passive and trying to calm the situation down." Please show where Trump 'respond[ed] with force'.

Trump 'respond[ed]' with words, and nothing but words if my memory serves me correctly. Or am I misinformed there as well?

If I am misinformed, I am sure you will be able to point out a tangible 'thing' Trump has done to 'respond[] with force' (not words) as you seemingly are claiming with your example....

(04-30-2018 06:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And to make an analogy, if I want to avoid a fight with someone, and they're acting aggressively towards me, I'm more likely to insight a fight by responding with force than by being passive and trying to calm the situation down.

There are tens of millions of Austrians, Czechs, Poles, Dutch, Belgians, French and others who would disagree.