Look around on the LR. It sure appears there are a lot of wet beds up in the Great White North.

Tha k you for paying for our protection with you tax dollars, by the way. Means the world to us!

---

Long Chile was a silly place.

thanks for the response.

I read your history of NK above and thought it was a good synopsis. I think it really brings home the fact that while NK has been a "problem" for 60 years, the change to the son and the issues faced by Obama and Trump are really at a different level. I didn't think it could get much worse but it has....

I am still not entirely convinced they are an imminent threat but I admit no one else is sending missles up in the air at the moment.

I hope, as an international community, we find common ground and a solution here.

Yeah, I don't see how anyone who criticized Obama over his "red line" (which I did) comment wouldn't also criticize this.

Bluster only degrades the credibility of the of the White House on the world stage.

Part of my unease with Trump on this is I don't trust him to keep it at the bluster/rhetoric level. He has no track record on this sort of thing and I'm afraid he will want to take his toys out to play kind of like when he got in the semi and was pretending to drive (and in my mind was definitely making the vroom vroom noises).

His talk and actions also set us at odds with out allies. The Iran deal was not just a bilateral agreement. So when you call it dumb, you call our allies who took part dumb. When you talk about totally destroying NK it makes everyone on edge. I don't see people like Merkel responding well to this and taking us seriously. Part of the measured response is treating our allies with respect and engaging them.

In a lot of circumstances I would say it is not a great idea to have so many generals running around the administration. It blurs the lines on civilian control of the military. But Kelly and McMaster (my knowledge of Mattis is very limited) seem to have very strong senses of duty to the country. I have much more confidence in them keeping things from getting out of hand than I do Trump.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

I note sarcasm in your tone...

I just went back and watched the fire and fury video/quote and the red line video. He (Trump) attaches fire and fury to NK simply continuing to make threats toward the US (vs. taking action).

I agree with you that these fall in similar categories and should be at least equally criticized. After watching again I think Trump's is even worse/less thought out (or at least Obama was more well spoken when mis-speaking).

That said, I continue to disagree that bluster only degrades credibility. Appropriately timed and spoken bluster by a super power receives appropriate attention and action. I would say that utilizing it in a manner that cant be or isn't backed up (as in the cases above) degrades future bluster and the overall credibility of the country.

His talk and actions also set us at odds with out allies. The Iran deal was not just a bilateral agreement. So when you call it dumb, you call our allies who took part dumb.

The Iran deal is another example of Trump's bluster. He said in the campaign that it was the worst deal ever and that he would rip it up on day 1. I don't think he mentioned again until his speech to the UN.

The problem is that the Iran deal is a good one. The idea that you can sanction your way out of these things has never worked yet it seems to be the fall back position over and over. If sanctions don't work, then the only solution is more sanctions is the logic of the day. Meanwhile, despite sanctions, both Iran and North Korea developed a nuclear program over the past decades. Instead of welcoming new ideas that might work, the thinking is to do more of the same. It makes no sense.

I think the comments about Iran were really to appease Israel and Saudi Arabia who would like nothing better than to increase sanctions on Iran. I'm not sure why he is suddenly pivoting towards Iran after 9 months of silence but I can only guess it is because of those 2 countries,

Well, yes and no. While I am grateful to live where I do in a safe country, I just find it hilarious when Americans try to use the fact that they pay for our protection as some kind if insult, as if the joke is on us. It kind of brings up the discussion in the other thread about the obligation of the us to the rest of the world. It is in America's best interest to do so, so, here we are. I don't think reminding Canadians who pays for most of our defense is going to illicit the reaction you seem to think it would.

---

Long Chile was a silly place.

I love how the media and people like you take a snippet from Trump's speech, twist it and run with it. Trump didn't just toss out a line stating he intended to destroy North Korea. Instead, in his speech he said, if the United States are forced to defend itself or its allies against North Korea we will have no choice but to totally destroy the rogue nation. He's right. That's exactly what would need to happen. I guess he should have stated that we would sit back and allow our allies to defend themselves while sipping tea. His UN speech was actually pretty good for him. But hey, CNN said...

Few other things.

War with Russia and China? Neither are going to go to war with the United States if North Korea attacks and we are forced to respond (see Trump's speech). In addition, the only people I hear wanting war with Russia are anti-Trump. I have never in my life heard so many irresponsible statements from leading Democratic political figures in regards to a country who may not be our ally, but they aren't our enemy either. In fact, we need to try and work with Russia much like we need to work with China. Re-starting the Cold War because you lost an election is not a very intelligent thing to do, yet that's exactly what seems to be on the agenda of the Democratic leadership and their supporters.

As for Iran. The deal was a bad deal. Done in darkness by Obama in an attempt to provide himself a legacy. Much like Bill Clinton's deal with North Korea in 1994, the Iran deal will go down in flames, as it should.

Oh, and you must be smart enough to know that Trump doesn't have the power to simply play with his military toys and attack. There are many reasons to go after Trump, his speech at the UN and his talk of North Korea in that speech is not one of them.

There are many reasons to go after Trump, his speech at the UN

What are some of those reasons?

He doesn't like Trump, isn't that enough?

He doesn't like Trump, isn't that enough?

But he loves Trump.

I'm just curious what it is he finds objectionable in Trump's speech.

I disagree with just about everything you wrote, but I'll pick this one.

Yes, the President has exactly that power. He can order a nuclear launch from, say, a boomer sub with no need for concurrence or permission from any other branch of government or the military.

Those receiving the orders could refuse, but they'd be breaking the law by doing so. Or if enough people thought he was nuts, the Veep and other senior leaders could try to rapidly invoke Article 4 of the 25th and remove the President from power on grounds of being unfit. But that'd take hours, at a minimum.

But on paper the President has absolute authority to order an attack.