Trump's UN speech
I'm sure Miller is next on Kelly's hit list, but who would be able to fill that role - who would want it?
Kim Jong Un keeps trolling Trump - and Trump keeps taking the bait.
Is it possible, as Mattis suggests, that we could attack NK w/o widespread death in SK?
jamie said:
I'm sure Miller is next on Kelly's hit list, but who would be able to fill that role - who would want it?
Kim Jong Un keeps trolling Trump - and Trump keeps taking the bait.
Miller is well-liked in the WH. He gets along with everyone.
I was horrified at the Rosh ha Shana dinner we attended last night when someone normally quite intelligent announced 'how good for US businesses' all this war-mongering is, and how she's right behind Trump in everything he's saying on foreign policy. Thank goodness she can't vote in your elections! (It's bad enough she votes in ours, she buys into every right-wing scare-making political rumour run that drifts past)
Everyone else was saying 'please, let there be some sense and peace', and she's saying, 'no - let's bring on the troops and get in the NK's face now!'. Frightening.
If Australia joins Trump's NK adventure, will she volunteer? Or be watching from the side lines cheering the troops on?
I think I know the answer to that one.
There nothing really new in saying if N Korea threatens us in real ways, we will destroy them. It's been policy for several presidents, but none have said it in front of the UN. The speech also referenced examples of international cooperation, like the Marshall Plan, so this isn't 100% Miller. Kelly leaned on him some.
BG9, sadly because she's 60 she's too old to be frontline... plus she's just out of hospital, so she'd find medical reasons. But she's inordinately proud of not relying on anyone else's support for anything, ever. (Which makes it sound like she did her own neck and back surgery)
And she speaks so admiringly of the business acumen of the Thai market women who set up their street food stall next to a construction site opposite where she was living a couple of years ago: 'they were there very early every morning, worked really hard, sold everything for only pennies really and then they took everything away again about 4 hours later. They didn't make much, but you know I bet they were happy. As soon as they set up everyone lined up for the food, it's physically hard no safety rules but look what they did...'. Sorry, to me it sounds like a bit like people doing what they have to in an exploitative situation (I'd rather know workers and diners are safe, people don't have to schlep equipment in each day, etc).
joanne said:
BG9, sadly because she's 60 she's too old to be frontline... plus she's just out of hospital, so she'd find medical reasons. But she's inordinately proud of not relying on anyone else's support for anything, ever. (Which makes it sound like she did her own neck and back surgery)
I notice many conservatives are so proud of not relying on government. They proclaim it often enough. Also, they often show disdain for those who do rely or for the truly compassionate they refer to as the "liberal elites."
Yet, when they are in need of help, then they themselves don't hesitate asking for and getting it. Like the good folk in Texas. Has any Texan refused help from the big bad Federal government?
Its usually the older folk who are often more interventionist or pro-war. Part of is when many age they become more conservative, hankering back to the simpler times of when they were young. They also are not war stake holders. They won't be sent, it will be the young who go.
Tangent: how pathetic is it that Melania delivered a bullying speech? I'm sure she was coached into taking up bullying as a FLOTUS cause, but geez, does it get more ironic than this?
Honestly, I don't know how she talks about bullying with a straight face. But I guess years of perfecting a blank stare and soulless existence helps.
GL2 said:
Tangent: how pathetic is it that Melania delivered a bullying speech? I'm sure she was coached into taking up bullying as a FLOTUS cause, but geez, does it get more ironic than this?
Stephen Miller is near the top of my list of Guys I'd Like to Punch in the Face.
Others on my list:
- Any male Trump (I'll spare Baron, for now)
- Martin Shkreli
- Steve Bannon
- Corey Lewandowski
- Paul Ryan
- Ted Cruz
- Tom Brady
- Chris Brown
- Kanye West
- Mike Pence
....
Jeffrey Sachs warning on how Trump's rhetoric on Iran and North Korea can lead to catastrope. A must-read and call-to-action. Sachs should be featured on every news and cable station to deliver this message:
(my bold)
Trump pushes US closer to war
By Jeffrey D. Sachs September 20, 2017
Donald Trump’s speech to the United Nations on Tuesday moved the world closer to war. The speech was Hitlerian in tone and content, filled with vitriol and grievance. Germany, said Hitler, was stabbed in the back by its own leaders after World War I. The Obama administration, declared Trump, signed an agreement with Iran that was “one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into.” Trump threatened, from the very podium of the UN General Assembly, to “totally destroy” North Korea, a country of 25 million people.
Almost as chilling as the speech was the reaction. US neo-conservatives who had led the United States into the disastrous war with Iraq, such as former Ambassador John Bolton, cheered. So too did Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who recklessly and relentlessly itches for the United States to destroy Iran. Most pundits chastised Trump for his tone or demeanor, but viewed the speech as a television spectacle to be rated rather than a threat to world peace. Don’t worry, they tell us, the United States will never launch a war against nuclear-armed North Korea.
This complacency is perhaps our greatest danger. Take Trump, President Kim Jong Un of North Korea, and Netanyahu at their word. They mean what they say, even if what they say is irresponsible vainglory that could get millions killed. Bombastic and self-absorbed narcissists throughout history have meant what they said. And yes, they have gotten many millions killed. Now one warhead can do the job.
Even if such talk is bluster and bluff, the consequences can be the same. The game of chicken often ends in disaster. That, after all, is what the game is all about, daring to go beyond the limits. And accidents are likely even when leaders imagine they are in control. As John F. Kennedy observed during the Cuban Missile Crisis, “There is always some son of a ***** who doesn’t get the word” despite an order for restraint from above.
War is avoided by cool heads and steady hands at the helm, the opposite of Trump. War is avoided by solving political problems, by seeing the deeper reasons for the confrontation through the eyes of the adversary. War is avoided by diplomacy, not bluster.
Trump is doing the opposite, aiming to humiliate his North Korean counterpart, even mocking him as “Rocket man,” and thereby (he seems to believe) forcing a highly visible retreat by North Korea.
North Korea told the world about its strategic objectives a few days ago, but the Trump administration has pointedly refused to acknowledge the statement, and the media has failed to analyze it. The North Koreans declared that they seek an “equilibrium” with the US military to deter a “military option” by the United States. In their own words, they are not seeking war, world domination, or nuclear annihilation. What they are seeking is to avoid being overthrown by the United States.
Their fear of US-led regime change is, alas, all too realistic. The United States is addicted to overthrowing its adversaries, most recently Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, Libya’s Moammar Khadafy, and (unsuccessfully) Syria’s Bashar al-Assad. In the case of both Saddam and Khadafy, the US-led regime change came after both of those leaders had renounced their nation’s efforts to obtain nuclear weapons.
In the case of Iran, Trump’s overheated rhetoric is even more bizarre. A nuclear agreement has already been reached and is being fulfilled. Iran’s moderate President Hassan Rohani has won re-election against hardliners. The country is fighting ISIS effectively. The real explanation in the case of Iran lies with the US administration acceding to the reckless lobbying by both Israel and Saudi Arabia to lure us into a war with Iran for the narrow interests of those two countries (at least “interests” as warmongers in the two countries perceive them).
Have no complacency. Speak out against war. Demand democratic constraint over the US military and oversight by our hapless, so-far useless Congress. War typically seems impossible until it is too late. Then it is utterly disastrous and ruinous for all.
Jeffrey D. Sachs is University Professor and director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, and author of “The Age of Sustainable Development.”
It was kind of obvious Trump would be this dangerous, as even Glenn Greenwald could have realized.
paulsurovell said:
In a nutshell.
Put me down as not giving a fig about hearing from Mr. "Who me? Enabling Trump?" Greenwald or his ilk.
So it escalated to the two nuts calling each other nuts.
North Korea: Trump and Kim call each other mad
Having seen the cultural revolution, I would never have then thought that China would be the rational one. And yet, here we are:
China responded to the war of words, warning that the situation was "complicated and sensitive".
"All relevant parties should exercise restraint instead of provoking each other," said Foreign Minister spokesman Lu Kang.
Learned a new word today:
“I will surely and definitely tame the mentally deranged U.S. dotard with fire,” Kim said of Trump.
Well, we've wondered what could happen when two insane leaders with nukes butt heads. Fingers crossed.
GL2 said:
Learned a new word today:
“I will surely and definitely tame the mentally deranged U.S. dotard with fire,” Kim said of Trump.
Some reactions
"I would like to thank Kim for bringing 'dotard' back."
Merriam-Webster: "Searches for 'dotard' are high as a kite"
My favorite:
Donald Trump: "I have the best words, Rocket Man."
Kim Jong-un: "Hold my covfefe, #dotard."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/22/world/asia/trump-north-korea-dotard.html
I need to boast that my sister-in-law claimed the NY vanity license plate "covfefe" 1 hour after the tweet. Her claim to fame.
GL2 said:
I need to boast that my sister-in-law claimed the NY vanity license plate "covfefe" 1 hour after the tweet. Her claim to fame.
That's outstanding!
Once again, my dismay is deep and goes deeper.
According to the NY Times, Stephen Miller had the biggest hand in writing this awful speech.