View Full Version : Thoughts on Donald Trump's threat to destroy North Korea during his UN speech?
gimmethesimplelife
9-19-17, 3:45pm
For anyone not knowing, Donald Trump just spoke before the United Nations and in his speech he threatened to "totally destroy North Korea". Thoughts? For myself, I am getting very frightened by this president and I'm not quite confident that something catastrophic lies ahead in the not too distant future. The kind of event in which it won't matter if you have two bags packed, access to cash and a plan to run......I hope I'm wrong but as of today, Donald Trump terrifies me and I'm not ashamed to admit this - I'm only ashamed that he was elected in the first place.
Anyone have any thoughts/take(s) on this infamous speech? Rob
I think he's speaking with the same vocabulary that Kim Jong-un is.
What are your thoughts about Kim's recent similar speeches, his nuclear weapons tests, and his missile launches?
What stage is the UN process in, with respect to Kim's actions? What's the next step?
The text of the speech itself makes interesting reading:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/09/19/trumps-menacing-united-nations-speech-annotated/?utm_term=.55d884d5c9cd
Two narcissists with arrested development who have way too much firepower at their disposal.
Each day brings a new embarrassment.
Well, Neville Chamberlin didn't do so well in retrospect...
The particular "threatening" text in the speech reads as such:
"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. Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime. The United States is ready, willing and able, but hopefully this will not be necessary. That’s what the United Nations is all about; that’s what the United Nations is for. Let’s see how they do."
If North Korea launches an actual attack with its new nuclear weapons and missiles, what is the proper response?
I just hate it when Trump says stuff like "Rocket man". Who the hell is this guy and why is he pretending to be our president??
Okay....... How do you think things should be handled bae? It's a really difficult situation, since so many innocent people could die, if we strike N. Korea (esp. south Koreans). But how long do we wait to keep Kim from doing something horrible to us? I'm sure glad I don't have to make the decision. Yes, it's so much worse with Trump as president. He's such a baby bully. Will we wait until Kim sends a nuclear missile to the U.S., and just keep our fingers crossed that we can explode it before it gets here? ........and what happens to the fallout from that? (nuclear, I mean). If we truly felt he was getting dangerously close to sending that missile, would we bomb the hell out of his entire country, so they couldn't send any more missiles anywhere?
It's such a horrible situation...........and to think that it's Trump who's dealing with it makes it so much worse.
gimmethesimplelife
9-19-17, 4:31pm
I just hate it when Trump says stuff like "Rocket man". Who the hell is this guy and why is he pretending to be our president??
Okay....... How do you think things should be handled bae? It's a really difficult situation, since so many innocent people could die, if we strike N. Korea (esp. south Koreans). But how long do we wait to keep Kim from doing something horrible to us? I'm sure glad I don't have to make the decision. Yes, it's so much worse with Trump as president. He's such a baby bully. Will we wait until Kim sends a nuclear missile to the U.S., and just keep our fingers crossed that we can explode it before it gets here? ........and what happens to the fallout from that? (nuclear, I mean). If we truly felt he was getting dangerously close to sending that missile, would we bomb the hell out of his entire country, so they couldn't send any more missiles anywhere?
It's such a horrible situation...........and to think that it's Trump who's dealing with it makes it so much worse.+ 1,000,000 Preach it CathyA, preach it!!! I couldn't agree with you more with your take here. Rob
Okay....... How do you think things should be handled bae?
I think we should have handled it a long time ago. We've sort of painted ourselves into a corner at this point.
I suppose I'd be tempted to bluster in language Kim could understand, while quietly working on a plan to remove him from office with minimal force and replace him with someone more reasonable.
If he does nuke us, well, that calls for something more than a harsh speech at the UN. My uncle is still at his post on the USS Arizona in Pearl Harbor. We nuked Japan, twice, after that. Plus the firebombings of course.
He shouldn't have to talk like that. It should simply be understood.
He shouldn't have to talk like that. It should simply be understood.
I think from the wording and context that this was some final posturing to the UN: "Do your job, or we will..." In combination with speeches from other administration officials over the past few weeks, it's presenting a picture of "the US is about to Do Something if y'all don't, and soon..."
Frankly, China should just take care of it ASAP. But I suspect they won't.
I think we should have handled it a long time ago. We've sort of painted ourselves into a corner at this point.
I suppose I'd be tempted to bluster in language Kim could understand, while quietly working on a plan to remove him from office with minimal force and replace him with someone more reasonable.
But what plan could we have had to remove him? I'm sure we could have somehow assassinated him, but how could we have been sure who would replace him? I wonder if anyone else in his regime would be as crazy?
I think from the wording and context that this was some final posturing to the UN: "Do your job, or we will..." In combination with speeches from other administration officials over the past few weeks, it's presenting a picture of "the US is about to Do Something if y'all don't, and soon..."
Frankly, China should just take care of it ASAP. But I suspect they won't.
Yes, I think that was the message that was supposed to get across to the UN. Do what you are supposed to do, or we will be forced do it.
From what I have read based on history, the US has invaded a number of countries like Iraq and left chaos in its wake. North Korea has armed itself with nuclear strength to prevent such a takeover. The UN may not like what North Korea is doing but there is little that can be legally done until serious attacks take place.
Iraq's chaos has scared a number of countries from proceeding with an invasion of any kind.
iris lilies
9-19-17, 5:00pm
But what plan could we have had to remove him? I'm sure we could have somehow assassinated him, but how could we have been sure who would replace him? I wonder if anyone else in his regime would be as crazy?
I would not assume at all that he can be reached for assassination.
I think anyone in N. Korea would be more sane. But what do I know.
It was an interesting juxtaposition - Trump going on and on about sovereignty and then threatening to destroy North Korea for exercising it.
gimmethesimplelife
9-19-17, 10:55pm
It was an interesting juxtaposition - Trump going on and on about sovereignty and then threatening to destroy North Korea for exercising it.Good point! I hadn't thought of this but you have a point here in my book. Rob
ToomuchStuff
9-20-17, 12:18am
It was an interesting juxtaposition - Trump going on and on about sovereignty and then threatening to destroy North Korea for exercising it.
Is it sovereignty for them to fire a missile over Japan? (who we are pledged to defend since dearming them for the most part, since WWII?
That would be like us firing a missile over Mexico and not expecting feedback.
I haven't seen them fire one over their neighbor, South Korea. Why not? I expect that would be a violation of the Armistice treaty they have kept, since the cease fire. We still have people stationed over there, and it is still technically a war zone.
+ 1,000,000 Preach it CathyA, preach it!!! I couldn't agree with you more with your take here. Rob
The speech was a bit more nuanced than that, of course.
"We do not expect diverse countries to share the same cultures, traditions or even systems of government. But we do expect all nations to uphold these two core sovereign duties: to respect the interests of their own people and the rights of every other sovereign nation. "
Worth reading it.
Williamsmith
9-20-17, 7:03am
Perhaps it's my choice to see humor in the darkest of places but I really got a chuckle out of the "Rocket Man" comment. laughter is the best medicine.
I suspect the plan has been well known for some time exactly what will happen to rocket man as soon as we tire of him shooting spitwads harmlessly into the ocean.
But for now, he is a fine tool for diplomatic leverage against China and an very nice excuse to boost our military industrial complex. For now, we are actually probably protecting him.
flowerseverywhere
9-20-17, 7:08am
It was a very good speech except for the rocket man addition. Welll written, sensible and articulate so obviously he did not write it.
Many issues were sensible. Resettling refugees near their home region? I've seen worse ideas. We all want to be "home" and practice our own culture. our nation's democratic and republican leaders as well as world leaders have let this issue fester for many years and finally it is an open sore that needs to be addressed. Immigration reform in our own country is long overdue, as well in many other countries.
Standing up to North Korea. I know this is the pot calling the kettle black but standing up to bullies has to be done sometimes.
The issue with North Korea is if we use Nuclear bombs you know who will die. The citizens. I can't imagine a less pro life thing to do from an administration that is determined to stop abortion. Of course, there is a huge difference between pro-birth (a good way to keep women in their place) and pro life which would actually help people get health care and value public education. But I digress
For anyone not knowing, Donald Trump just spoke before the United Nations and in his speech he threatened to "totally destroy North Korea". Thoughts? For myself, I am getting very frightened by this president and I'm not quite confident that something catastrophic lies ahead in the not too distant future. The kind of event in which it won't matter if you have two bags packed, access to cash and a plan to run......I hope I'm wrong but as of today, Donald Trump terrifies me and I'm not ashamed to admit this - I'm only ashamed that he was elected in the first place.
Anyone have any thoughts/take(s) on this infamous speech? Rob
Why would this particular speech be so terrifying? Trump isn't the first president to promise retaliation in the event of a North Korean attack. Even bold Bill Clinton spoke of ending North Korea with "massive retaliation". I think it's important that the world in general and Kim in particular understand the potential consequences.
And why make Trump your ogre of choice? Kim hasn't shrunk from murdering his own relatives Bond villain style, with nerve agents and artillery. Why are you so distressed at a promise to fight back?
ToomuchStuff
9-20-17, 9:48am
And why make Trump your ogre of choice? Kim hasn't shrunk from murdering his own relatives Bond villain style, with nerve agents and artillery.
Your forgetting the uncle he fed alive to the dogs.
ToomuchStuff
9-20-17, 9:55am
Perhaps it's my choice to see humor in the darkest of places but I really got a chuckle out of the "Rocket Man" comment. laughter is the best medicine.
I suspect the plan has been well known for some time exactly what will happen to rocket man as soon as we tire of him shooting spitwads harmlessly into the ocean.
But for now, he is a fine tool for diplomatic leverage against China and an very nice excuse to boost our military industrial complex. For now, we are actually probably protecting him.
http://www.simplelivingforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=1941&stc=1
Then this is for you.
very nice excuse to boost our military industrial complex
I think this has a lot to do with all of this. And what is China's place in all of this?
ToomuchStuff
9-20-17, 10:28am
I think this has a lot to do with all of this. And what is China's place in all of this?
According to a second hand conversation..... (wish I had been there for it)
China thinks of it as their coal producer, and if he keeps that up, they don't worry about him much. But they also believe they have the right to run it over and rule there, if he fails to supply them. (according to what I was told, they also have plans for this country and it isn't if, but when, as they have been around for thousands of years)
They are worried about basically something we do, making their needs radioactive and unusable.
China is a member of the UN. and the major supplier/dealer with North Korea.
They also do not want a large number of North Korean refugees to deal with as happened before.
According to a second hand conversation..... (wish I had been there for it)
China thinks of it as their coal producer, and if he keeps that up, they don't worry about him much. But they also believe they have the right to run it over and rule there, if he fails to supply them. (according to what I was told, they also have plans for this country and it isn't if, but when, as they have been around for thousands of years)
They are worried about basically something we do, making their needs radioactive and unusable.
China is a member of the UN. and the major supplier/dealer with North Korea.
gimmethesimplelife
9-20-17, 11:13am
Why would this particular speech be so terrifying? Trump isn't the first president to promise retaliation in the event of a North Korean attack. Even bold Bill Clinton spoke of ending North Korea with "massive retaliation". I think it's important that the world in general and Kim in particular understand the potential consequences.
And why make Trump your ogre of choice? Kim hasn't shrunk from murdering his own relatives Bond villain style, with nerve agents and artillery. Why are you so distressed at a promise to fight back?Simply put, why am I terrified of this speech? The floor of the UN is not the appropriate time and place to make such threats and to be so bombastic - with the potential price tag of untold millions of civilian lives. I find it amazing that even though I am very much miscast in my role as a US Citizen, and even though I've already posted that my "tribe" in life tends to be comprised of those society would consider "other" - even I get this. Even I understand that this speech went too far and was disrespectful towards the dignity and sanctity of human life. I find myself slightly flattered that even though I am an outsider in most aspects of this society, I truly understand that this speech was a horrible, horrible thing. Maybe it's true that it's best to be an outsider as those on the outside looking in? Their gift is that they to see things clearly - and I see this speech as a threat to untold millions of human lives and it furthermore shames me to be a US citizen to have Trump in office making such an over the top and inappropriate speech with utter disregard for the potential consequences. At least I'm part of the resistance in my zip code, I can comfort myself with that but that doesn't mean much if in fact nuclear war were to take place. Rob
Simply put, why am I terrified of this speech? The floor of the UN is not the appropriate time and place to make such threats and to be so bombastic ....
I think it was exactly the right place to do it. When a nation goes rogue, as North Korea definitely has, letting the UN, and especially China, know that if they don't do something about it, the US will be forced to do it for them seems appropriate.
The whole thing is making me want to rewatch North by Northwest.
ToomuchStuff
9-21-17, 8:50am
I think it was exactly the right place to do it. When a nation goes rogue, as North Korea definitely has, letting the UN, and especially China, know that if they don't do something about it, the US will be forced to do it for them seems appropriate.
+1
Sanctity of human life, then you ought to visit North Korea (think we had a tour thread a while back).>8)
Simply put, why am I terrified of this speech? The floor of the UN is not the appropriate time and place to make such threats and to be so bombastic - with the potential price tag of untold millions of civilian lives. I find it amazing that even though I am very much miscast in my role as a US Citizen, and even though I've already posted that my "tribe" in life tends to be comprised of those society would consider "other" - even I get this. Even I understand that this speech went too far and was disrespectful towards the dignity and sanctity of human life. I find myself slightly flattered that even though I am an outsider in most aspects of this society, I truly understand that this speech was a horrible, horrible thing. Maybe it's true that it's best to be an outsider as those on the outside looking in? Their gift is that they to see things clearly - and I see this speech as a threat to untold millions of human lives and it furthermore shames me to be a US citizen to have Trump in office making such an over the top and inappropriate speech with utter disregard for the potential consequences. At least I'm part of the resistance in my zip code, I can comfort myself with that but that doesn't mean much if in fact nuclear war were to take place. Rob
The UN has provided a venue for many a thug, tyrant and murderer (including some Nobel laureates) for many years now. What's so shocking about the US trying to contain the threat of nuclear weapons in the hands of a guy who feeds people to dogs? Does your gift of clarity not tell you that every president of the postwar era has made (with varying degrees of eloquence) that same "threat to untold million"? It's been a fact of life for decades. You may consider standing up to the likes of Kim shameful. Speaking for myself, and not my zip code, blood type or hat size, I take a certain amount of pride in it.
frugal-one
9-21-17, 2:40pm
The UN has provided a venue for many a thug, tyrant and murderer (including some Nobel laureates) for many years now. What's so shocking about the US trying to contain the threat of nuclear weapons in the hands of a guy who feeds people to dogs? Does your gift of clarity not tell you that every president of the postwar era has made (with varying degrees of eloquence) that same "threat to untold million"? It's been a fact of life for decades. You may consider standing up to the likes of Kim shameful. Speaking for myself, and not my zip code, blood type or hat size, I take a certain amount of pride in it.
Ridiculous... one maniac antagonizing another. No pride in that!
Ridiculous... one maniac antagonizing another. No pride in that!
What *should* Trump's response be to the Korean nuclear tests, and their ballistic missile overflights of Japan (an ally we are bound by treaty to defend), and their threats against the US mainland and Guam?
What *should* Trump's response be to the Korean nuclear tests, and their ballistic missile overflights of Japan (an ally we are bound by treaty to defend), and their threats against the US mainland and Guam?
I would like to know that, too.
I have been thinking about the movie Bad Day at Black Rock. It seems apropos.
I'm sure any one of a number of humans having even a nodding acquaintance with statecraft and/or diplomacy could come up with a better speech than that cretinous clod did. Or maybe he'd just like to get down in the mud and wrestle Kim Jong Un. We've done just fine ignoring N. Korea for sixty years, and Twitter-boy is not the one to ride to the rescue. An all-out war would probably--at least temporarily--save him from the Russian money-laundering/American election rigging juggernaut barreling toward him. He certainly doesn't care how many lives may be lost in the process.
Anyone read the text of the speech?
Anyone read the text of the speech?
It would seem not.
I'm reminded that many of the nation's Democratic leaning newspapers were once critical of the Gettysburg Address, not because of content, but rather because of the speaker. Not to compare the two, but some things never change.
It would seem not.
Understood. It is the end of life. Eternity stops. Go out into the tunnel. To the chamber of the ages. Cry for the children. Walk carefully in the vault of tomorrow. Sorrow for the murdered children. The thing you search for is there. Go. Go. Sadness. Sadness for the end of things.
https://i1.wp.com/www.tor.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/devilinthedark1.jpg?fit=700%2C+9999&crop=0%2C0%2C100%2C530px&ssl=1&w=640
But I don't think we're just doing fine, given the fact he is launching missiles and detonating hydrogen bombs.
I read the speech in the WaPo version with the highlighting.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/21/politics/donald-trump-north-korea-sanctions/index.html
North Korea has been lobbing missiles since at least 1993. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-15278612
Sanctions are fine, but bellicose chest beating from our side is not. If Kim Jong Un wants to engage in that kind of thing, the proper response is silence.
Williamsmith
9-21-17, 3:30pm
So rocket man has one less user friendly banker today than he had yesterday. Who is going to pay for those Ukrainian rocket engines?
Williamsmith
9-21-17, 3:32pm
North Korea has been lobbing missiles since at least 1993. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-15278612
Sanctions are fine, but bellicose chest beating from our side is not. If Kim Jong Un wants to engage in that kind of thing, the proper response is silence.
Sticking your head in the sand accomplishes the same thing and as an added bonus you don't have to watch them splash down.
North Korea has been lobbing missiles since at least 1993. .
Are the missiles he is lobbing today similar in performance, accuracy, and payload to the ones he launched in 1993? Or do they improve in some significant quantitative or qualitative measures?
Are the potential payloads he could put aboard the missiles today the same as could be launched in 1993?
Could he nuke Seattle in 1993? Will he be able to in 2018?
Are the missiles he is lobbing today similar in performance, accuracy, and payload to the ones he launched in 1993? Or do they improve in some significant quantitative or qualitative measures?
Are the potential payloads he could put aboard the missiles today the same as could be launched in 1993?
Could he nuke Seattle in 1993? Will he be able to in 2018?
There's a progression, of course. I'm sure he's well aware of what will follow if he decides to fire off a nuclear warhead. If not, let him try it. Or do you think we should lob a pre-emptive strike "just because?"
Trump reminds me of a petulant primate flinging feces around--except he's my representative on the world stage. And I can't wait for this reality show to be over.
Trump reminds me of a petulant primate flinging feces around--except he's my representative on the world stage. And I can't wait for this reality show to be over.
Perfect analogy Jane!
Teacher Terry
9-21-17, 6:12pm
Jane I totally agree with you. I can not wait for this soap opera to conclude. Ugh!
frugal-one
9-21-17, 6:25pm
What *should* Trump's response be to the Korean nuclear tests, and their ballistic missile overflights of Japan (an ally we are bound by treaty to defend), and their threats against the US mainland and Guam?
Trump is a joke himself. He talks about "Rocket Man"... as someone here mentioned, perhaps we should call Trump .... "Tweet Boy"? He has absolutely no decorum and thinks by antagonizing N Korea ... that will make things better? I want a President that thinks before they speak.... instead of being such a "loose cannon". Will be happy when Trump is gone! He definitely is not an asset.
I can certainly see the equivalence between Tweeting smarmy comments and exploding hydrogen bombs/launching ICBMs....
He shouldn't have to talk like that. It should simply be understood.
Exactly. It's just a pissing contest between two swaggering egomaniac children.
Teacher Terry
9-21-17, 7:00pm
Tweet boy. what a great name for the little man!
Tweet boy. what a great name for the little man!
The Tweet thing drives me to distraction. If I had a middle manager, much less a CEO, Tweeting like this, I'd have fired him ages ago.
I can certainly see the equivalence between Tweeting smarmy comments and exploding hydrogen bombs/launching ICBMs....
Trump is tweeting, in this case, to bait Kim Jong Un. And the fate of thousands of people are riding on the Korean leader's not taking the bait.
I was no fan at all of George W Bush, but his antics didn't keep me up at night.
Teacher Terry
9-21-17, 7:07pm
At this point I really, really miss Bush and I never even liked him.
frugal-one
9-21-17, 8:10pm
I can certainly see the equivalence between Tweeting smarmy comments and exploding hydrogen bombs/launching ICBMs....
Who is to say? Both Trump and Un are egomaniacs.
Williamsmith
9-21-17, 8:22pm
Tweet boy. what a great name for the little man!
I like "Tweety Boyd".
Williamsmith
9-21-17, 8:25pm
At this point I really, really miss Bush and I never even liked him.
I dont think you'd ever get Trump to land on the deck of a carrier and declare mission accomplish. But he'd tweet about it.
I dont think you'd ever get Trump to land on the deck of a carrier and declare mission accomplish. But he'd tweet about it.
Can a Boeing 757 even land on an aircraft carrier? They managed a C-130 once, which is a bit shorter, has a longer wingspan, is quite a bit lighter than the 757, and has a lower stall speed.
Might be doable though.
I dont think you'd ever get Trump to land on the deck of a carrier and declare mission accomplish. But he'd tweet about it.
And sell souvenir baseball caps at $40 a pop. Made in China of course.
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2017-09/united-states-should-not-punch-first-korea
flowerseverywhere
9-21-17, 9:39pm
The Tweet thing drives me to distraction. If I had a middle manager, much less a CEO, Tweeting like this, I'd have fired him ages ago.
i was shocked Kelly took the job without demanding he stop the tweeting.
Williamsmith
9-21-17, 9:48pm
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2017-09/united-states-should-not-punch-first-korea
Geez, you expect me to read all that....I'll wait for CNN and FOX to tell me what it said..readers digest version. Then I'll disregard both and go play a round of golf.
Trump reminds me of a petulant primate flinging feces around--
Just think how indignant you'd be if he'd said that about Kim.
Just think how indignant you'd be if he'd said that about Kim.
Some things are better left unsaid (publicly, by adults in responsible positions).
Kim Jong Un's response was pretty good. "Dotard." Perfect characterization.
I don't think either side should be name calling; I can't see why it is right for one side and not the other; it just escalates things.
Name calling is very different than saying that you will not stand for an action by another, different than setting boundaries.
catherine
9-22-17, 11:51am
Geez, you expect me to read all that....I'll wait for CNN and FOX to tell me what it said..readers digest version. Then I'll disregard both and go play a round of golf.
Reader's Digest version: If we strike first, we're screwed, because China HAS to defend Korea, according to terms of the treaty that was just renewed and remains in effect until 2021.
BUT if THEY strike first, China doesn't have to defend them. So, we're playing chess now, and making sure that if anything happens at all, it better be them attacking us. But they are really just playing chicken. And we better be prudent.
Have a good round!
I don't think either side should be name calling; I can't see why it is right for one side and not the other; it just escalates things.
Name calling is very different than saying that you will not stand for an action by another, different than setting boundaries.
I agree in principle. "Dotard" was such an apt characterization, though...:devil:
I saw where some commentator said, if Kim ever rants about Hillary winning the popular vote, look out.
I don't think either side should be name calling; I can't see why it is right for one side and not the other; it just escalates things.
Name calling is very different than saying that you will not stand for an action by another, different than setting boundaries.
There are certainly more diplomatic ways to threaten people with extermination.
There are certainly more diplomatic ways to threaten people with extermination.
LDAHL, I was reacting to Jane's post about the name calling by both men. I think it is counter productive and escalates the violence, which is not what I want to see happen.
LDAHL, I was reacting to Jane's post about the name calling by both men. I think it is counter productive and escalates the violence, which is not what I want to see happen.
They really strike me as brothers from another mother--weird hairdos, pouty little mouths, portly builds, demanding absolute fealty, reckless posturing...I'm surprised Kim doesn't tweet. He'd be a natural. And Trump only dreams of his absolute power.
ToomuchStuff
9-23-17, 8:52am
Reader's Digest version: If we strike first, we're screwed, because China HAS to defend Korea, according to terms of the treaty that was just renewed and remains in effect until 2021.
BUT if THEY strike first, China doesn't have to defend them. So, we're playing chess now, and making sure that if anything happens at all, it better be them attacking us. But they are really just playing chicken. And we better be prudent.
Have a good round!
LDAHL, I was reacting to Jane's post about the name calling by both men. I think it is counter productive and escalates the violence, which is not what I want to see happen.
I would say it is more nuanced then that. Kim first launched his missiles locally (into the sea by themselves). A pretty typical practice. The one that went over Japan, so far, has been a one time event. If he would continue that, would China view that as an act of aggression? Would they view it the same if he sent them over Hong Kong? If one malfunctions and then hit Japan, or Hong Kong, would that be an act of aggression? Would a limited strike on the launch site be ignored (by China if launched by us, by USA if China went in)? If their game of you make the first move, gets North Korea to actually make the first move, and we went it, would China also cross the border, to protect its interests in the region, or would they sit back and watch as we unified Korea, similar to Germany after the wall came down?
At least Trump lasts on these name calling things and is a know surpriser (look at the last election). The UN is kind of like sending lawyers into court for a restraining order.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.