Could Trump put an end to America's failed policy of war?

[fromderinside]

Look at it this way - if we kill all the civilians, there won't be anyone left who needs to be protected. So Cheato can go ahead and drop MOABs and nukes all over the place, with nothing but good things to come from it.

No, You look at it this way. Cheato is a bully with a small dick. Nothing good came from that either.

 

[Elixir]

Look at it this way - if we kill all the civilians, there won't be anyone left who needs to be protected. So Cheato can go ahead and drop MOABs and nukes all over the place, with nothing but good things to come from it.

No, You look at it this way. Cheato is a bully with a small dick. Nothing good came from that either.

Trying to take WP's title (Captain Obvious) from him? Anyone with more than half a brain already looks at it that way.
Guess I forgot the sarcastic/facetious icon...

 

[repoman]

Look at it this way - if we kill all the civilians, there won't be anyone left who needs to be protected. So Cheato can go ahead and drop MOABs and nukes all over the place, with nothing but good things to come from it.

No, You look at it this way. Cheato is a bully with a small dick. Nothing good came from that either.

 

[Malintent]

You seem incapable of understanding that there can be degrees of wrong.

That's an interesting proposition you make and also questionable. Degrees of Wrong, sounds catchy but worthless as a moral guide.

"degrees of wrong" is a measure, not a guide... as "catchy" as the term "moral guide" may seem to you, that is not what that is.
A moral guide is a mechanism one develops through their personal experiences. Measuring the "degree of wrongness" of a notion is a tool one uses to make moral decisions.

The notion that the morality of all possible human actions can be fully described as "completely immoral" or "completely moral" is simplistically juvenile.

Try this, for fun... every time someone gives you a piece of information, ask the question, "is that good or bad?", and see what kind of responses you get overall.

 

[Keith&Co.]

That's an interesting proposition you make and also questionable. Degrees of Wrong, sounds catchy but worthless as a moral guide.

"degrees of wrong" is a measure, not a guide...

Well, voting for the 'lesser evil' uses 'degrees of wrong' as a guide. Or a tool to guide the decision.

Or any situation where you have nothing but bad choices, but one is more bad than the others. Such as a choice between allowing a felony or committing a misdemeanor to stop it.

 

[repoman]

Not according to this redpilled guy

 

[Ford]

Cheato himself addressed this today at the UN. His answer?

No.

In fact he's apparently decided that a war that has been unofficially over since Ike was President is now back on again.

 

[Elixir]

Is anyone still unclear about how desperately Cheato needs a war (or better yet, a few wars) to prop up his regime?

Let's not forget "Why do we have nukes if we can't use them?"
The guy is a menace that needs to be deposed whatever means, as soon as possible.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Is anyone still unclear about how desperately Cheato needs a war

He needs a WIN, at this point. Inheriting a war doesn't do any good unless you're the one that ends it. Starting a war while we're still fighting the last one shouldn't do much good, either. Esp. if he's reducing the manning of troops to kowtow to fundies and/or immigration assholes.

Hmm. Maybe that's the Democrat platform in 2018? "Would you die overseas to improve Trump's ratings?"

 

[funinspace]

Is anyone still unclear about how desperately Cheato needs a war

He needs a WIN, at this point. Inheriting a war doesn't do any good unless you're the one that ends it. Starting a war while we're still fighting the last one shouldn't do much good, either. Esp. if he's reducing the manning of troops to kowtow to fundies and/or immigration assholes.

And starting a war on the Korean peninsula would be very risky w/o implicit support of the PRC and of course South Korean support. We could certainly start the shooting match, that is easy. But most of the end games are pretty ugly and scary. El Cheato may be ignorant enough to get on board with some sort of hard strike upon NK, but I think the generals and admirals will be uniformly against such actions. But they could always try and steer FFvC towards Iran...

 

[Elixir]

He needs a WIN, at this point.

Pffft!
Whatever he does, he'll call it "a YUUUGE WIN!". What he actually needs is a more credible boogeyman than ISIS (who haven't been able to launch any significant action against the US since 9/11), with which to scare his snowflake followers into supporting him while he reneges on every stupid promise he ever made...
Nothing like a massive pointless war to rally the troops, y'know.

 

[Keith&Co.]

He needs a WIN, at this point.

Pffft!
Whatever he does, he'll call it "a YUUUGE WIN!".

Yeah, but unlike, say, the subtle distinction between legislation and executive orders, his followers are very fond of war, and will be able to tell the difference between wins and losses and mired down in another endless bog... It'll be harder to convince them that Up is Down on that one...

 

[Elixir]

It'll be harder to convince them that Up is Down on that one...

Are you discounting Cheato's tremendous, incredible, amazing ability to hoodwink his own base? So many times, he has been underestimated...
To say that there is a limit to the extent to which FFvC can deceive his drooling sycophants, is to invite later ridicule upon oneself.

 

[bilby]

Pffft!
Whatever he does, he'll call it "a YUUUGE WIN!".

Yeah, but unlike, say, the subtle distinction between legislation and executive orders, his followers are very fond of war, and will be able to tell the difference between wins and losses and mired down in another endless bog... It'll be harder to convince them that Up is Down on that one...

National leaders don't need to WIN wars to become popular. Indeed, history suggests that losing is the better route to popularity for a leader. When your troops are winning great victories, you need to convince the people that they are still at risk, and need your strength to protect them, but when you suffer a major military setback (particularly one that leads to civilian deaths), the people will fall over themselves to support you.

What you need to gain popular support is a credible threat. Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam were losing wars (or stalemates) for the US, but more importantly, they didn't project a credible threat to the folks back home. Pearl Harbor and 9/11 were real threats - neither was a victory, but that didn't matter. Churchill was never more popular than when he was standing alone against the might of the Nazi war machine; but once the war was won, the British public voted him out of office.

What Trump (like any weak leader) needs to consolidate his support is not a war per se; it is a credible and widely accepted threat to the American people. North Korea might fit that bill, but only if the people genuinely believe that Kim can hit the USA with a nuke. Certainly when viewed from the other side, Kim is very successful in persuading his people that Trump and the USA are an existential threat to North Korea - and the NK public will put up with astonishing hardships if those hardships mean being protected from 'US aggression'.

If LA or Seattle were to be wiped off the map by a NK H-Bomb (NK almost certainly doesn't have an H-Bomb, btw; and they probably can't deliver an A-bomb to Tokyo, much less the US west coast) then that would be terrible for the USA, but fantastic for Trump's popularity ratings. Particularly when he responds by turning North Korea into 120,000km² of radioactive glass.

 

[Elixir]

What Trump (like any weak leader) needs to consolidate his support is not a war per se; it is a credible and widely accepted threat to the American people.

THAT ^^^

 

[4321lynx]

Worth thinking about is China's attitude to, and after, a total wipe-out of N Korea:-

http://www.thedailybeast.com/what-h...destroys-north-korea-the-real-fighting-begins

 

[funinspace]

Worth thinking about is China's attitude to, and after, a total wipe-out of N Korea:-

http://www.thedailybeast.com/what-h...destroys-north-korea-the-real-fighting-begins

What a fucking stupid article by Gordon Chang, with citing another of his stupid articles with:

If there is a war on the Korean Peninsula, as appears increasingly likely, what happens after the guns go silent?

El Cheato is a blowhard clown playing chicken, and when Rocket Man doesn't swerve, he will; as the PRC, Russia, and SK aren't providing a chorus to FFvC's rants. Short of Rocket Man starting a war, it far more likely appears that NK will be joining the smallish nuclear weapons club. To get to a "total wipe-out of N Korea" one has to have a war first. Maybe the journalist Chang should work on that first, and secondly one in which the PRC feels it can stand on the sidelines. Maybe Chang thinks the Rocket Man will launch a nuke ICBM for giggles... This is a guy that predicted the collapse of the PRC in a book in 2001. Then, he revised his prediction in 2011, pushing it to 2012.

A total fail of a book:
https://www.amazon.com/Coming-Collapse-China-Gordon-Chang/dp/0812977564?tag=vglnk-c140-20

 

[LordKiran]

What a fucking stupid article by Gordon Chang, with citing another of his stupid articles with:

If there is a war on the Korean Peninsula, as appears increasingly likely, what happens after the guns go silent?

El Cheato is a blowhard clown playing chicken, and when Rocket Man doesn't swerve, he will; as the PRC, Russia, and SK aren't providing a chorus to FFvC's rants. Short of Rocket Man starting a war, it far more likely appears that NK will be joining the smallish nuclear weapons club. To get to a "total wipe-out of N Korea" one has to have a war first. Maybe the journalist Chang should work on that first, and secondly one in which the PRC feels it can stand on the sidelines. Maybe Chang thinks the Rocket Man will launch a nuke ICBM for giggles... This is a guy that predicted the collapse of the PRC in a book in 2001. Then, he revised his prediction in 2011, pushing it to 2012.

A total fail of a book:
https://www.amazon.com/Coming-Collapse-China-Gordon-Chang/dp/0812977564?tag=vglnk-c140-20

Yeah that's pretty dumb. I'd honestly expect the Rus Fed to collapse before the PCR if anything. Nothing short of being carved up post unconditional surrender will be enough to tear down the PCR as it stands presently.

 

[4321lynx]

Seems to me DJT wants a deal and has made his maximum demand. No one wants war but it's up to Chjna, Russia and NKorea to make the next move, together or severally. The Donald was "correct" and polite to the first two. Now everybody has to decide whether what he said was just bluff, bullshit, or a real threat, and it will have caught the attention of all three players facing him. I doubt if even Donald or his generals know which of the three just occurred. I certainly know that no-one on this Forum knows, no matter how opinionated they may appear. Never heard of "journalist Chang" before today but his version of the end play is one possibility I would not discount.
Let's wait and see what the final deal may be.

 

[barbos]

Seems to me DJT wants a deal and has made his maximum demand. No one wants war but it's up to Chjna, Russia and NKorea to make the next move, together or severally.
.....
Let's wait and see what the final deal may be.

Russia does not want another land border with US. China does not want any borders with US. So don't expect them being terribly excited about South Korea taking over the whole Korea. And any deals with US as Iran deal shows is not worth much. China is economically well enough to not feel threatened by US. Russia-US relations are pretty much non-existent now and no deal could possibly fix that.