Jump to content

Because Trump 2.0


Mr King

Recommended Posts

I don't have a problem with NK's words I have a problem with them having ICBM deliverable nukes. Ignoring that will NOT solve anything.

 

 

Pakistan, an exporter of terrorism, has deliverable nukes. Where's the worry and angst? There is none? Somehow we're able to get on with our lives by ignoring that little factoid. Russia has thousands of deliverable nukes, somehow we find a way to accept that reality. China too has large numbers of deliverable nukes. And so on, and so on.

 

People and nations can only extort those that allow themselves to be extorted. When is the last time Russia or China were extorted by the likes of Kim No Dong? Answer, NEVER. Why? Because they refuse to be extorted and because everyone knows, without them having to make public threats and proclamations, that they'll erase the extorter from the face of the earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 32.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Stuart Galbraith

    2969

  • rmgill

    2763

  • DKTanker

    1868

  • Josh

    1768

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Its a tragic thing when POTUS issues vague threats against madmen;

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/26/us-developing-missile-shield-to-guard-against-nuclear-attack-fro/

 

Mr Obama gave warning of the possible consequences. “We could, obviously, destroy North Korea with our arsenals,” he told CBS News. “But aside from the humanitarian costs of that, they are right next door to our vital ally, [south] Korea."

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/26/barack-obama-warns-north-korea-over-nuclear-testing

 

Barack Obama has warned North Korea that the United States "will not hesitate to use our military might" to defend allies, condemning the actions of "a pariah state that would rather starve its people than feed their hopes and dreams" and characterising the 38th parallel dividing the two Koreas as "freedom's frontier".

 

"We we will not hesitate to use our military might to defend our allies and our way of life."

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-north-korea-earthquake-nuclear-test-20160908-story.html

 

"The United States does not, and never will, accept North Korea as a nuclear state," he said in a statement. "Today's nuclear test, a flagrant violation of multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions, makes clear North Korea's disregard for international norms and standards for behavior and demonstrates it has no interest in being a responsible member of the international community."

 

http://www.newsweek.com/north-korea-sanctions-attack-kim-jong-un-south-korea-barack-obama-war-452838

 

In a CBS interview that aired on Tuesday, Obama said the United States was spending a lot more time positioning its missile development systems to set up a shield "that can at least block the relatively low-level threats," posed by North Korea.

U.S. State Department spokesman Mark Toner urged North Korea to refrain from actions that destabilize the region and said Washington would consider "other" options if Pyongyang continued nuclear and missile testing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When a five year old throws a tempter tantrum, I don't know what you do, but I don't stoop to their level.

 

If the 5 yo had managed to get your handgun, you WOULD pay attention though wouldn't you?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Bottom line is this, with today's news that your Orange Messiah is now threatening to use military force against Venezuela

 

I had hoped this was a slip and you meant NK. Went and checked the web and... nope, you were right. The wires are blowing up with this right now. FFS... /facepalm

 

Yeah, but this was expected. Maduro went ahead with the constituent assembly, jailed the opposition designated Supreme Court and had been warned not to continue in his antics. He continued. This is neither irresponsible or reckless by Trump.

 

How can you say that? What's the point of threatening military action when there's zero reason to believe we could do anything militarily to make positive change in Venezuela?

 

How could I not? I hate the socialists in Venezuela enough for it to take place. The country is a failed Narcostate, anything would be an improvement. The absolute misery of people making lines to eat garbage. One of my reasonings for voting Trump was exactly this, that when the time came for Venezuela to be discussed again in the Oval we would get finally some action. Obama when it came to Venezuela had a status quo policy, as long as Maduro or Chavez were not openly slaughtering people, he would let them be, to the point he used Shannon to force the oposition into a dialogue that would only aid the dictatorship.

 

Then we have this:

 

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/venezuela/article166981822.html

 

Rubio called Diosdado Cabello the Venezuelan Pablo Escobar. He is wrong, Cabello is Pablo on steroids. He achieved what Pablo always wanted, national power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Bottom line is this, with today's news that your Orange Messiah is now threatening to use military force against Venezuela

 

I had hoped this was a slip and you meant NK. Went and checked the web and... nope, you were right. The wires are blowing up with this right now. FFS... /facepalm

 

Yeah, but this was expected. Maduro went ahead with the constituent assembly, jailed the opposition designated Supreme Court and had been warned not to continue in his antics. He continued. This is neither irresponsible or reckless by Trump.

 

How can you say that? What's the point of threatening military action when there's zero reason to believe we could do anything militarily to make positive change in Venezuela?

 

How could I not? I hate the socialists in Venezuela enough for it to take place. The country is a failed Narcostate, anything would be an improvement. The absolute misery of people making lines to eat garbage. One of my reasonings for voting Trump was exactly this, that when the time came for Venezuela to be discussed again in the Oval we would get finally some action. Obama when it came to Venezuela had a status quo policy, as long as Maduro or Chavez were not openly slaughtering people, he would let them be, to the point he used Shannon to force the oposition into a dialogue that would only aid the dictatorship.

 

Then we have this:

 

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/venezuela/article166981822.html

 

Rubio called Diosdado Cabello the Venezuelan Pablo Escobar. He is wrong, Cabello is Pablo on steroids. He achieved what Pablo always wanted, national power.

 

I would love if it were possible for America to go in and do something... I just don't think it's realistic.

 

Back before Iraq my mindset was "who cares if he has WMD, Saddam is a dirtbag and we have the ability to make positive change in the region"... and then we invaded. The clusterfuck in the ME since, coupled to our failure to create a stabilized Afghanistan, and thrown in with all the other military misadventures in the last 25 years (Libya, Syria, the Balkans, etc.) leave me skeptical that we could intervene militarily in a place like Venezuela and make positive change.

 

There's also another realist view that has to be considered - war is expensive and for a long time after the fact, too. I saw a stat the other day that expenses for Vietnam vets haven't even peaked yet. We've been at war for almost half my life and the promises we've made to the vets of these current conflicts will not be cheap, either. If we promise too much, overextend, and then everything collapses inwards in twenty years it'll all be for naught.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simply showing up with an MEU and a Carrier off the coast, warning Maduro that it's time to leave, allowing him safe passage to Cuba and then rolling in the Marines to handle food shipments/dispersal and keep order would probably work reasonably well, assuming MOST of the citizenry is done with Maduro. Chavistas best go to Cuba.

 

Getting some of our Latin American allies in on the work would be useful too.

 

 

 

Preventing a mass set of reprisals would be the key to fixing it without major bloodshed. If the Chavistas want to hang on to power then it gets sticky.

Edited by rmgill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simply showing up with an MEU and a Carrier off the coast, warning Maduro that it's time to leave, allowing him safe passage to Cuba

And if he doesn't leave...?

 

America has the same problem we've had going back to Vietnam - what happens if the other guy just chooses to wait us out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simply showing up with an MEU and a Carrier off the coast, warning Maduro that it's time to leave, allowing him safe passage to Cuba and then rolling in the Marines to handle food shipments/dispersal and keep order would probably work reasonably well, assuming MOST of the citizenry is done with Maduro. Chavistas best go to Cuba.

 

Getting some of our Latin American allies in on the work would be useful too.

 

 

 

Preventing a mass set of reprisals would be the key to fixing it without major bloodshed. If the Chavistas want to hang on to power then it gets sticky.

Why exactly would Venezuela react to a reinforced battalion? Way to bring a knife to a gun fight. That course of action would accomplish nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't have a problem with NK's words I have a problem with them having ICBM deliverable nukes. Ignoring that will NOT solve anything.

 

 

Pakistan, an exporter of terrorism, has deliverable nukes. Where's the worry and angst? There is none? Somehow we're able to get on with our lives by ignoring that little factoid. Russia has thousands of deliverable nukes, somehow we find a way to accept that reality. China too has large numbers of deliverable nukes. And so on, and so on.

 

People and nations can only extort those that allow themselves to be extorted. When is the last time Russia or China were extorted by the likes of Kim No Dong? Answer, NEVER. Why? Because they refuse to be extorted and because everyone knows, without them having to make public threats and proclamations, that they'll erase the extorter from the face of the earth.

 

Pakistan - got their nukes when we needed them as an ally in the Cold War. Wise or not it was a decision that was made. Also, they and India are staring at each other waiting for something to happen. Pakistan has not been threatening to nuke the US for a decade or more like NK has. As for some fundamentalist government taking over Pakistan(and their nukes), that has kept many people awake at night and still does.

 

Russia(USSR) - taking out their weapons beforehand was never an option. We came very close to nuking each other a few times and avoided it by luck or the grace of god. I really don't feel comfortable relying on that option more than necessary.

 

China - Taking out their program was not really an option either and at one time were a counterweight to the USSR. They haven't made a habit of threatening to nuke us though a general or two has commented about it from time to time.

 

Not only would a NK nuke landing on a US city or few do tremendous damage to our economy and society, there's a growing realization that just one or two detonated at the right spot and the right altitude could send the US back to the stone age in a matter of minutes.

 

Some devils you have to live with, some you choose to live with and some you just can't live with. You disagree that NK is the latter. I'm not so sure.

 

Iran is another country I'm not willing to put the fate of the US in the hands of.

 

As I posted earlier, we are rewarding bad behavior by allowing the crazy nations of the world to get nukes while bribing and cajoling the better ones to stay out of the nuclear club. We are building a club of unstable, anti-western, nuclear armed crazies, the opposite of a safer, saner world.

 

To borrow from rmgill, we live in a neighborhood where there is a crazy man who lives in a hovel who walks around threatening everyone. From time to time, we placate him with food and money but each time he comes back even more belligerent. Then one day he starts walking around the neighborhood with a gun, firing off rounds from time to time saying he's going to shoot all of us. Do we keep handing him food and money in hopes he will eventually go away, some day, some how, or do we decide things have gone past the point of safety and that he's too big a threat to our families and neighbors and it's time to finally end the threat one way or the other.

 

There are no good answers, but there may be some that are more necessary than others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if he doesn't leave...?

As I said:

 

"If the Chavistas want to hang on to power then it gets sticky. "

 

 

Why exactly would Venezuela react to a reinforced battalion? Way to bring a knife to a gun fight. That course of action would accomplish nothing.

MEU and a Carrier (which generally includes all of the teeth and tail of a Carrier Group).

 

Simply bringing such things to the table has worked in the past.

 

Perhaps you've heard of the term gunboat diplomacy? See also the early History of Panama.

Edited by rmgill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

FCS have people learned nothing from a century of dealing with communist/populist megalomaniacs of many different brands? Hasn't been shown, time and time again, that their reckless pushing is a feature, not a bug? Are people so hellbent on undermining the USA that they would so facetiously put forward appeasement policies that everybody and their mommy knows don't work? Jeebus Chrysler, grow some gonads and join Al-Qaeda, it would be so less infuriating.

Shooting back in a proportionate way is not appeasement. When we faced the Soviet Union, I don't recall a lot of relentless pushing and I don't recall us going nuclear after they shot the odd spy plane down. They actually pulled back out of Manchuria, Austria, parts of Finland etc. and were kicked out of other places - Albania, Egypt, Romania et al. They eventually collapsed inwardly. China's relentless pushing last resulted in territorial gains in 1958 against an essentially defenceless country. They haven't gained any territory from any nation able to put up more than token resistance. I don't recall Cuba invading anywhere (though they had troops in Angola). When sections of the West believed in relentless Communist pushing - the so called "domino theory" - it got it into a bit of a pickle. Genital or otherwise anatomical metaphors are not going to help.

If i have to explain again why NK nowadays is not the same as the East Bloc or PRC, im gonna have a scrotal vascular incident, what that for a genital figure of speach

 

 

Be my guest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

FCS have people learned nothing from a century of dealing with communist/populist megalomaniacs of many different brands? Hasn't been shown, time and time again, that their reckless pushing is a feature, not a bug? Are people so hellbent on undermining the USA that they would so facetiously put forward appeasement policies that everybody and their mommy knows don't work? Jeebus Chrysler, grow some gonads and join Al-Qaeda, it would be so less infuriating.

Shooting back in a proportionate way is not appeasement. When we faced the Soviet Union, I don't recall a lot of relentless pushing and I don't recall us going nuclear after they shot the odd spy plane down. They actually pulled back out of Manchuria, Austria, parts of Finland etc. and were kicked out of other places - Albania, Egypt, Romania et al. They eventually collapsed inwardly. China's relentless pushing last resulted in territorial gains in 1958 against an essentially defenceless country. They haven't gained any territory from any nation able to put up more than token resistance. I don't recall Cuba invading anywhere (though they had troops in Angola). When sections of the West believed in relentless Communist pushing - the so called "domino theory" - it got it into a bit of a pickle. Genital or otherwise anatomical metaphors are not going to help.

If i have to explain again why NK nowadays is not the same as the East Bloc or PRC, im gonna have a scrotal vascular incident, what that for a genital figure of speach

 

 

Be my guest.

 

 

Population alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have any of you nuclear warhawks ever played tic-tac-toe? By your eagerness to nuke NK, I'd say not.

Don't be an ass DKT. If you can't discuss without smarmy insults then your case is a weak one on substance. I'm happy to continue discussing the substance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And if he doesn't leave...?

As I said:

 

"If the Chavistas want to hang on to power then it gets sticky. "

 

 

Why exactly would Venezuela react to a reinforced battalion? Way to bring a knife to a gun fight. That course of action would accomplish nothing.

MEU and a Carrier (which generally includes all of the teeth and tail of a Carrier Group).

 

Simply bringing such things to the table has worked in the past.

 

Perhaps you've heard of the term gunboat diplomacy? See also the early History of Panama.

 

I always thought that overflights (Like in the Philippines) would do wonders for the populace...

Edited by Mike Steele
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And if he doesn't leave...?

As I said:

 

"If the Chavistas want to hang on to power then it gets sticky. "

 

 

Why exactly would Venezuela react to a reinforced battalion? Way to bring a knife to a gun fight. That course of action would accomplish nothing.

MEU and a Carrier (which generally includes all of the teeth and tail of a Carrier Group).

 

Simply bringing such things to the table has worked in the past.

 

Perhaps you've heard of the term gunboat diplomacy? See also the early History of Panama.

 

Carriers have operated off the coast of the DRPK several times since that crisis started. Is Kim bending over to kiss our ass yet? It would accomplish nothing unless you actually bombed something, along with all of the diplomatic baggage that would accrue. Because the US isn't going to war with Venezuela and everyone knows it, including Maduro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

And if he doesn't leave...?

As I said:

 

"If the Chavistas want to hang on to power then it gets sticky. "

 

 

Why exactly would Venezuela react to a reinforced battalion? Way to bring a knife to a gun fight. That course of action would accomplish nothing.

MEU and a Carrier (which generally includes all of the teeth and tail of a Carrier Group).

 

Simply bringing such things to the table has worked in the past.

 

Perhaps you've heard of the term gunboat diplomacy? See also the early History of Panama.

 

Carriers have operated off the coast of the DRPK several times since that crisis started. Is Kim bending over to kiss our ass yet? It would accomplish nothing unless you actually bombed something, along with all of the diplomatic baggage that would accrue. Because the US isn't going to war with Venezuela and everyone knows it, including Maduro.

 

 

Venezuela has no large country on its border that acts to guarantee its security. North Korea does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I always thought that overflights (Like in the Philippines) would do wonders for the populace...

The Philippines didn't have Su-27s.

 

Thats true, but they don't have toilet paper either. This is one of those if they can't provide basics how are they doing with specialized things, like airplane parts?

Edited by Mike Steele
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because airplane parts are a necessity of the state, and the absence of toilet paper is not general but applies only to a sector of the populace. The biggest sector, of course, but at the same time the one that matters least. So let me hazard that the Sukhois will fly when needed. Competently or not, that has to be seen.

 

However, if I may, each and every time the USA even glances southward the choir of cursing and gnashing teeth goes farther than the Kuiper Belt, and will every time even if the president of the day confined himself to reciting the Condensed Works of V.I.Lenin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Carriers have operated off the coast of the DRPK several times since that crisis started. Is Kim bending over to kiss our ass yet? It would accomplish nothing unless you actually bombed something, along with all of the diplomatic baggage that would accrue. Because the US isn't going to war with Venezuela and everyone knows it, including Maduro.

Venezuela has no large country on its border that acts to guarantee its security. North Korea does.

 

I'm pretty confident that the likelihood of the US bombing North Korea is still higher than the likelihood of the US bombing Venezuela and that the Chavistas are aware of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Venezuela has no large country on its border that acts to guarantee its security. North Korea does.

 

I think that this is the key here.

 

My belief is that Trump's message isn't to NK, it's to China.

 

It's one last step saying: "Bring them under control, or we will."

 

As to a proportionate response - Any attempt to bomb Guam, or any other place under the protection of the US can be met by conventional means. It would be trivially easy for the US to put a JDAM or equivalent weapon on any and every place they choose in NK. That could include every place that is or might be a location where the fat one with the bad haircut might be staying. (No, not that one, the one with black hair.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Simply showing up with an MEU and a Carrier off the coast, warning Maduro that it's time to leave, allowing him safe passage to Cuba and then rolling in the Marines to handle food shipments/dispersal and keep order would probably work reasonably well, assuming MOST of the citizenry is done with Maduro. Chavistas best go to Cuba.

 

Getting some of our Latin American allies in on the work would be useful too.

 

 

 

Preventing a mass set of reprisals would be the key to fixing it without major bloodshed. If the Chavistas want to hang on to power then it gets sticky.

Why exactly would Venezuela react to a reinforced battalion? Way to bring a knife to a gun fight. That course of action would accomplish nothing.

 

It is the most powerful military force faced by the Venezuelan military since the battle of Ayacucho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Simply showing up with an MEU and a Carrier off the coast, warning Maduro that it's time to leave, allowing him safe passage to Cuba and then rolling in the Marines to handle food shipments/dispersal and keep order would probably work reasonably well, assuming MOST of the citizenry is done with Maduro. Chavistas best go to Cuba.

 

Getting some of our Latin American allies in on the work would be useful too.

 

 

 

Preventing a mass set of reprisals would be the key to fixing it without major bloodshed. If the Chavistas want to hang on to power then it gets sticky.

Why exactly would Venezuela react to a reinforced battalion? Way to bring a knife to a gun fight. That course of action would accomplish nothing.

 

It is the most powerful military force faced by the Venezuelan military since the battle of Ayacucho.

 

That is true of almost every nation in the world. It has a poor track record of actually making regimes de-legitimize themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Bottom line is this, with today's news that your Orange Messiah is now threatening to use military force against Venezuela

 

I had hoped this was a slip and you meant NK. Went and checked the web and... nope, you were right. The wires are blowing up with this right now. FFS... /facepalm

 

Yeah, but this was expected. Maduro went ahead with the constituent assembly, jailed the opposition designated Supreme Court and had been warned not to continue in his antics. He continued. This is neither irresponsible or reckless by Trump.

 

How can you say that? What's the point of threatening military action when there's zero reason to believe we could do anything militarily to make positive change in Venezuela?

 

How could I not? I hate the socialists in Venezuela enough for it to take place. The country is a failed Narcostate, anything would be an improvement. The absolute misery of people making lines to eat garbage. One of my reasonings for voting Trump was exactly this, that when the time came for Venezuela to be discussed again in the Oval we would get finally some action. Obama when it came to Venezuela had a status quo policy, as long as Maduro or Chavez were not openly slaughtering people, he would let them be, to the point he used Shannon to force the oposition into a dialogue that would only aid the dictatorship.

 

Then we have this:

 

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/venezuela/article166981822.html

 

Rubio called Diosdado Cabello the Venezuelan Pablo Escobar. He is wrong, Cabello is Pablo on steroids. He achieved what Pablo always wanted, national power.

 

I would love if it were possible for America to go in and do something... I just don't think it's realistic.

 

Back before Iraq my mindset was "who cares if he has WMD, Saddam is a dirtbag and we have the ability to make positive change in the region"... and then we invaded. The clusterfuck in the ME since, coupled to our failure to create a stabilized Afghanistan, and thrown in with all the other military misadventures in the last 25 years (Libya, Syria, the Balkans, etc.) leave me skeptical that we could intervene militarily in a place like Venezuela and make positive change.

 

There's also another realist view that has to be considered - war is expensive and for a long time after the fact, too. I saw a stat the other day that expenses for Vietnam vets haven't even peaked yet. We've been at war for almost half my life and the promises we've made to the vets of these current conflicts will not be cheap, either. If we promise too much, overextend, and then everything collapses inwards in twenty years it'll all be for naught.

 

Sadly this is why Iraq was such a tragedy.

 

There is no justification for it having gone the way it did. It was gross command level negligence from the White House, in this regard Bush torpedoed the Neocon agenda and movement. Had he listened to his generals he would have actually accomplished something there, rather than engaging in attrition warfare against an enemy that was not worth it. But the fact that there was a negligent use of force in Iraq, does not mean that any future military operations of the US will end in disaster.

 

Not to sound like a Fanboi, but if W's NatSec team was like Trump's, he would have had his Triumph over Iraq.

 

Having said that you are under the impression that Venezuela needs to be invaded. This assumption means that Maduro is beloved by all and the only way to secure victory is to invade and take the capital, but this falls under the assumption that conventional efforts like this are the only option. In the case of Venezuela there are many options available, and only some include force. The economic sanctions against individuals who prize the money they have stolen as their most prized possession, or maybe some PSYOP/SF into destabilizing further the regime.

 

Just a week ago the largest military Fort in Venezuela was raided by rebels, whose aim was not to capture the Fort but to abscond with firepower, and they did. Over100 rifles, plus assorted MGLs, AT-4s and plenty of ammo. A group of officers in the Venezuelan FBI took a helicopter over the Supreme Court and Miraflores, dropping flashbangs and engaging in a short firefight with the Presidential Honor Guard.

 

There is also the fact that Venezuela is under Cuban occupation. In the last independence day parade, the chief of the Armed Forces, actually wore the Cuban flag over the Venezuelan one, and they pay homage to Fidel in a grotesque way. There are Cuban political commissars in control of the intelligence services, and they have led to purges that have included a General in Chief, Raul Baduel, who saved Chavez as the commander of the Parachute division in 2002... just for Chavez to toss him a black cell because Fidel told him he was the next Pinochet.

 

In that regard, I strongly support the use of military force, in ANY capacity to removed the Communist overlords from Cuba. Venezuela is not a sovereign nation.

 

This should be well know in the US, but since Venezuela was the socialists paradise lauded by the Left, the only MSM coverage it received for a long, long time was about the achievements of a true Social Justice Warriors. Bernie had said several favorable things about Venezuela, and as he was gunning for the Dem nomination, do you think he was called upon this BS by anyone?

 

Think Panama, not Iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...