Film, Media & TV0 min ago
What Was Your Reaction, If Any, To Trump's Un Speech?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ichkeria. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"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."
is what he said. There is no need to spin the spin. It is irresponsible talk. And his vision of a world where the UN is subservient to the competing power of nations is an attempt to set the clock back decades to the early 20th century or at best the pre-war years of the League of Nations (also I believe unsupported by the US)
The US invented the UN and hosts it. it is a very good invention and despite its problems does a hge amount of good things in the world. All we ever see are the disagreements, the security council vetoes and er yes the Trump speeches these days ...
is what he said. There is no need to spin the spin. It is irresponsible talk. And his vision of a world where the UN is subservient to the competing power of nations is an attempt to set the clock back decades to the early 20th century or at best the pre-war years of the League of Nations (also I believe unsupported by the US)
The US invented the UN and hosts it. it is a very good invention and despite its problems does a hge amount of good things in the world. All we ever see are the disagreements, the security council vetoes and er yes the Trump speeches these days ...
“Well little things like destroying North Korea for example..”
Let’s have a little think, Icky. We have a leader of North Korea who has openly declared that his country has nuclear weapons. There seems to be little doubt about the veracity of his claims. The country has tested ballistic missiles which are capable of carrying the nuclear weapons, firing them over Japan. The North Korean leader has also declared that Guam, a US territory home to about 170,000 US citizens, is well within its reach and is among its targets.
What sort of “measured response” is the US President to make to such a threat? What is he to say will be the consequences of such aggression? “Please don’t do that as I’ll have to send you a stiff note if you do”?
The North Korean regime needs to be in no doubt about the consequences of carrying out such threats. What you describe as “genocide” is the collateral damage that will be visited on North Korea should its leaders be foolish enough to embark on their lunatic schemes. The rest of the world should be supporting President Trump in his response to the threat of nuclear weapons being used against the US. Instead they sit on their hands suggesting that he is the lunatic.
Let’s have a little think, Icky. We have a leader of North Korea who has openly declared that his country has nuclear weapons. There seems to be little doubt about the veracity of his claims. The country has tested ballistic missiles which are capable of carrying the nuclear weapons, firing them over Japan. The North Korean leader has also declared that Guam, a US territory home to about 170,000 US citizens, is well within its reach and is among its targets.
What sort of “measured response” is the US President to make to such a threat? What is he to say will be the consequences of such aggression? “Please don’t do that as I’ll have to send you a stiff note if you do”?
The North Korean regime needs to be in no doubt about the consequences of carrying out such threats. What you describe as “genocide” is the collateral damage that will be visited on North Korea should its leaders be foolish enough to embark on their lunatic schemes. The rest of the world should be supporting President Trump in his response to the threat of nuclear weapons being used against the US. Instead they sit on their hands suggesting that he is the lunatic.
I read that you write NJ and I am, unlike the Trumpster, ...
speechless :-)
And by the way there is a lot more packed into that 40 mins than this bluster (it IS bluster by the way: I would imagine Kim was delighted to hear this threat because it simply bolsters his own authority in the eyes of his people. What he should have said was "destroy the regime" -- we'd all agree with that I am sure. But not the whole country: that sort of cack-handed gaffe only forges a relationship of solidarity between Kim and his benighted people that has no right to exist)
Ok, not speechless then :-)
speechless :-)
And by the way there is a lot more packed into that 40 mins than this bluster (it IS bluster by the way: I would imagine Kim was delighted to hear this threat because it simply bolsters his own authority in the eyes of his people. What he should have said was "destroy the regime" -- we'd all agree with that I am sure. But not the whole country: that sort of cack-handed gaffe only forges a relationship of solidarity between Kim and his benighted people that has no right to exist)
Ok, not speechless then :-)
The issue is not that they wouldn't fight fire with fire: of course they would and quite rightly. If North Korea attacked the US the US would respond and the result would be the destruction of much of that country. But no one doubts that anyway. That's a given. What Trump should be doing is rising above that and providing some sort of wholesome vision that makes much of the world look up to the US.
But Ichi you are ignoring the rest of the sentence.
But if forced... we will have no choice...
They are in the same sentence and in fact before the part you are focusing on.
You remind me of an English lesson I had many many moons ago about reporting news and how it can be twisted to say anything if individual words or parts of sentences are taken out and used in isolation. It happens more and more nowadays for point scoring in a very childish manner. I say childish because it is so obviously done in a childlike way.
When I was about 14 we had this very exercise in our English lesson. Even then we realised to use that way to report would be using the information in a dishonest way that just showed the reporter to be absurdly and obviously biased.
But if forced... we will have no choice...
They are in the same sentence and in fact before the part you are focusing on.
You remind me of an English lesson I had many many moons ago about reporting news and how it can be twisted to say anything if individual words or parts of sentences are taken out and used in isolation. It happens more and more nowadays for point scoring in a very childish manner. I say childish because it is so obviously done in a childlike way.
When I was about 14 we had this very exercise in our English lesson. Even then we realised to use that way to report would be using the information in a dishonest way that just showed the reporter to be absurdly and obviously biased.
A bit drastic surely JD ;-)
Tho I am sure the generals are tearing their hair out.
As for Kim, it would be a brave general who would do that, and don't forget they probably all rely on his power for their own wealth and status. If he went, the whole house of cards would probably topple. That is normally how autocracies work. It's an insurance policy.
Tho I am sure the generals are tearing their hair out.
As for Kim, it would be a brave general who would do that, and don't forget they probably all rely on his power for their own wealth and status. If he went, the whole house of cards would probably topple. That is normally how autocracies work. It's an insurance policy.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.