President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

The Bowden piece, which is excellent, surmises that it is extremely unlikely that North Korea would ever launch a pre-emptive attack, because it has no incentives to do so. Kim's rhetoric is essentially aimed at continuing to project an image of strength to his isolated citizenry and maintain his grip on power. Their military build-up is likely due to the fact that they legitimately feel threatened by the United States and other Western powers. He knows, he has to know, that a genuine misstep by him is the end of everything his family has built for generations. They launch a pre-emptive attack on the U.S. or its allies, and their country ceases to exist within 24 hours.

 

He availed himself to use the option. How was it not policy?

They also stretched the meaning of imminent threat to mean just about anything.

“The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” the memo states.

Instead, it says, an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.” The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.”

"Bluster" combined with the capability to launch an attack against us in the near future, along with any signs that they are making plans to carry out such an attack, is more than enough to warrant a preemptive strike, and has been for the duration of several Presidencies.

 

But as usual, the ones who figure they have nothing to lose (ie having a very young daughter vs a teenage son) are beating the drums for war because they think it will prop up the authoritarian bully who makes their dick swell with pride because he hates all the same people they do.

 

Can and will, which Trump committed himself to, are quite different. When you say that preemption is "policy," I don't take that as you saying it's an option. I take that as you saying it is the option.

 

Name me a country who wouldn't prefer that. Yet again, WE are the ones quaking in our boots. No one else. How does that happen, again and again?

There is no nation that possesses that kind of leadership. It is another invention of ours just because there are a few individual people who fit that description.

What country ever HAS had an incentive to do so? And what country ever COULD have an incentive to do so?

 

Fair point. But the thing with Kim is that he cannot win. The United States has an incentive to pre-emptively nuke North Korea, because it would win. Of course, the collateral consequences might be catastrophic. But we would win the centerpiece showdown. He would not.

 

Reports? Where are those?

 

Maybe not now, but there certainly are, or have been, entities that were for all intents and purposes equivalent to such.

 

Hmmm. Define "entities."

 

Homeowners associations.

 

Don't get @93Devil started.

 

So, I guess he hasn't "flipped", huh?