(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.