Ex-President Donald Trump

On September 23rd Trump tweeted about the North Korean Foreign Minister

North Korea (as well as other people) interpreted his words as a declaration of war.

Let me ask you this question do you actually like Trump or do you only support him because he is on your political "team"?

 

The most important YT vid you will watch about the Trump/Russia hacking conspiracy.
Stay woke. 35 minutes.

 

What he tweeted doesn't mean NUCLEAR War. He could be deposed, assassinated, removed by China, bombed, etc.
When you say 'other people', that really means Liberals.

It's not whether l like Trump or not, as he has a personality not suited for everyone.
I don't have a traditional political 'team' because the far left and right both make me ill. For me, it is, and always will be, country first. Americans first. IDC what creed culture etc..take care of home first, and then you can better take care of the rest of the world.

 

'Thanksgiving week, President Trump was joined by Tiger Woods and Dustin Johnson (#1 ranked golfer in the world).

Trump and Tiger have history ... they've golfed together in the past.'

 

Kim Jung Un could be assassinated?? Deposed???lol

Trump has already threatened N. Korea with fire and fury earlier this year. Most military strategists have said you can't defeat N. Korea with conventional warfare, so to me that means nukes.

WHen you have a POTUS who had to be told why we don't use our nuclear weapons if we have them, I take his threat against the N. Korean U.N. envoy to mean a military attack and potential nuclear strike.

THis is why our idiot president needs to stop conducting foreign policy through twitter.

 

One can come up with all types of explanations what it COULD mean, but it's more relevant how the international community understands it. His wording was understood as a threat of war by most in the international community including North Korea itself. He doesn't understand that as President of the United States EVERY SINGLE WORD you speak or write publicly matters. You can't make a verbal threat of war when at the same time your foreign minister is trying to get something done through diplomacy.
And if he thinks America first means it's a very smart move to withdraw from NATO then we will see his friend Putin continue to push into Western Europe as he's been doing secretly and not so secretly the past years. It will make the US neither safer nor happier to leave the playing field of Eastern Europe to Putin.

 

Military strategists said that? Forget about dotard for a second. You have any links?

 

"What it means to you", emotionally is irrelevant because you always just jump to the worst most dramatic meaning. What "military strategists" mean is we can't beat them with boots on the ground because of their large army. Theyve said a sky show would be the best strategy.

Stop quoting the President when he said no such thing, AB. Trump's enemy MSNBC host Joe Scarborough is your ooonly source, who said "a source told him", that. FOH with your source-told-a-source- so-it-must-be-true, diatribe.
For someone who like to talk politics, you sure love to gossip. And that's because you take the admitted liberal-far-Left controlled media as gospel... then have the gall to question why l no longer bother to accept MSM as the purveyors of truth? Stop it, lol.

 

Says a fox news koolaid drinker.
A "far left media" would be riding Trump every day for his tax returns....just like the far right cried for Obama's birth certificate.

A far left media would be exposing killer cops instead of blaming the victims.

 

Hi Madeline,
Trump is not the first U.S President to threaten Kim Jung Un.

Please note...
Obama condemns North Korean nuclear test as 'grave threat to regional security'

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...a-earthquake-nuclear-test-20160908-story.html

Keep in mind, Kim was NOT listening to a lick of it.
Not from Obama's threats, or the UN Council's.
He's IGNORED all of them, until President Trump told that bitch boy to hold up.
(Still, he thumbs his nose)


Excerpt from Link (2016)
"North Korea said it conducted a "higher level" nuclear test explosion on Friday that will allow it to finally build an array of stronger, smaller and lighter nuclear weapons, a move strongly condemned by the U.N. Security Council which promised new measures against Pyongyang.

The North's fifth atomic test and the second in eight months brought the U.N.'s most powerful body into emergency session, just three days after it strongly condemned North Korea's latest ballistic missile launches..."


President Trump uses Twitter, Obama used press conferences. What's the difference? - both warned Kim to stop his shit, but l didn't see you or AB include that Obama's threats "matter(ed)".

See this pic below? These are press conference stills of THREE Presidents responding to North Korea


That's a powerful public response.

Furthermore, Bush's "axis of evil" comment which comprised of North Korea, Iran and Iraq was most definitely met with world and local condemnation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1796034.stm
Bush stood his ground though..
"...President Bush maintained his tough stance on Friday, saying "all the three countries I mentioned are now on notice that we intend to take their development of weapons of mass destruction very seriously"

Finally...

"American attempts to counter North Korea’s nuclear program did not begin last week when President Trump promised to unleash “fire and fury” against the isolated government. For decades, Mr. Trump’s predecessors have waded into the diplomatic mire, trying to threaten or cajole North Korea’s ruling family into abandoning the country’s weapons programs. Each failed."

Story:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/...a-threat.html?referer=https://www.google.com/

 

Yeah, I haven't submitted an analysis on the linguistics of past presidents because we were talking about Trump. What we need is China. I think someone must have explained that to him before his last Asia trip from the way he spoke with them.

 

You stated:
'He doesn't understand that as President of the United States EVERY SINGLE WORD you speak or write publicly matters. You can't make a verbal threat of war when at the same time your foreign minister is trying to get something done through diplomacy."

If we are to accept your consensus, then all of our Presidents and various country leaders dealing with N.Korea and their launched threats... didnt understand that concept either.
Because It was taken so seriously even in 2010, that world leaders reacted, according to the BBC:

- 'South Korea's President Lee Myung-bak ordered the military to retaliate against North Korean targets in case of "additional provocations", his spokesman said...
"North Korea's shelling of Yeonpyeong island constitutes a clear armed provocation."

- Obama's White House press secretary Robert Gibbs called on North Korea to "halt its belligerent action", adding that the US was "firmly committed" to South Korea's defence."
Earlier on, the president's office said: "North Korea's shelling of Yeonpyeong island constitutes a clear armed provocation."

- An emergency session of the United Nations Security Council could be held on Tuesday or Wednesday, a French diplomatic source said.

- Japan's Prime Minister, Naoto Kan, said he had ordered ministers to prepare for any eventuality.

"I ordered them to make preparations so that we can react firmly, should any unexpected event occur," he said after an emergency cabinet meeting in Tokyo.

- Russia's foreign minister warned of a "colossal danger", and said those behind the attack carried a huge responsibility..."


So as you see, Trump's retalitory response is no more threatening than many other LEADERS', including those from a N.Korean ally.

It is imperative, now that l provided you an analysis on the linguistics of past presidents, that we keep it in context whilst discussing provocateur N. Korea, and their real threats of nuclear war against the U.S.A, Japan and South Korea.

 

What Clinton, Dubya and Obama understood is that you can only try to CONTAIN North Korea, not defeat them. There is no viable military option because of their proximity to South Korea.

We hit North Korea and South Korea burns.
Trump and his pals believe their is a real military option available to defeat North Korea, when really they're isn't. Not unless Trump is willing to destroy two counties to get rid of one dictator.

And yet Trump continues to insult and provoke North Korea with tweets. Historically you don't ease tensions with a madman via public insults.
In fact Trump's public stance against North Korea has accelerated their ballistic missile program, not halted it.

Trump has made direct military threats in public against North Korea, statements that have not been vetted or cleared by his State Department or Joint Chiefs of Staff. That's an extremely dangerous way to conduct foreign policy.

Add the fact that Trump has cut off all diplomatic channels with North Korea, and do you really wonder why much of the world believes Trump has brought us several steps closet to a nuclear exchange with North Korea??

Instead of defending everything Trump does, why not ask yourself if Trump is approaching this problem the right way??

We have an understaffed Stated Department at the absolutely worst time during this conflict, the Secretary of State has ZERO foreign policy expertise or experience and has summarily been cutting staff of career foreign service and diplomatic employees.

That's a prescription for war.

The difference between past world leaders' response to North Korea and today is that we KNOW that North Korea has nukes and possibly missiles capable of carrying a thermonuclear payload to the west coast of the United States.

The only way to defeat the Kim regime is to literally starve them out. Cut off ALL foreign aid and watch his grip on the country collapse when his army no longer has enough food to eat.
I know it's not as fun as dropping bombs, but it's the only sane long term strategy.

 

Is this assuming South Koreas military is weak or than Kim would nuke it?

 

I think it's assuming that Kim would drop the nuclear bomb.

 

That would guarantee the end of his country. He can't possibly win that way. He makes himself out to be crazy, and perhaps he is by our standards, yet he is more rational than people realize, if you really look at it and him for what he is.

He's not dumb, but rather self centered and only focused on the survival if his regime, using nukes would be counter to his goals.

 

Kim Jung Un has an array of conventional missiles lined up and point at Seoul, SK.

The assumption is if we strike NK, they will retaliate with a barrage of missiles against SK.

 

Isn't South Korea something like his hostage? He knows it'd be difficult for an American president to risk for South Korea to be wiped out, even if that meant North Korea is also wiped out.

 

South Korea won't burn that way. They are more than capable of hitting back. North Koreas capital will burn just as quickly if they think they can burn South Korea without a full scale attack. You cant smash a country like the hulk when your own capital is on fire.

 

Please elaborate