(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....