First, there was President Harry S. Truman, in 1945, demanding that the Japanese surrender or “they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth.”
Second, there was Bill Clinton, in 1993:
... during a speech in the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea that if Pyongyang ever used nuclear weapons, “it would be the end of their country.”Victor Cha (of the Center for Strategic and International Studies) said “I take Trump’s statement in the same spirit” as Bill Clinton's. It's “a message of deterrence, which is important now to avoid any miscalculation.”
There are 2 other experts quoted in the article. One is Michael Beschloss who wonders if Trump "was impulsive." To be impulsive in making a statement like that would (of course) "be very much out of the history of the presidency on matters like this.... You don’t have presidents blurting out things when lives are at stake, and if that is what it was, it would be scary."
Remember, what Trump said was: "North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen. He has been very threatening beyond a normal state and as I said they will be met with fire and fury and frankly power the likes of which this world has never seen before."
Did Trump speak on impulse or with attention to precedent? My opinion is influenced by the phrase "fire and fury." There's alliteration, like Truman's "rain of ruin," and the phrase after the alliterative phrase is almost the same as Truman's. Compare Trump's "like the world has never seen" to Truman's "the like of which has never been seen on this earth." Trump then repeats himself, with a bit of variation. He says "the likes of which this world has never seen before," which gets closer to Truman. It's almost as if he was aware of his difference from Truman and decided to repeat himself to tighten the connection.
He also added the non-alliterative "power" to "fire and fury," and that sounds like an ad lib to me because of the inclusion of the weak introductory word "frankly." Was that impulsive or blurting (to use Beschloss's words)? I wouldn't say so. "Power" conveys less of a threat of nuclear annihilation. It's more general and more opaque. There are endless ways to exercise power. It's a reference to America's great stature in the world — stature that we need to maintain, whatever we think of Donald Trump.
Posts
251 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 251 of 251"Did Trump actually mean what he said. If the latter, what fire and fury has the world never seen? Or is Trump simply historically illiterate?"
Good God, the apron over the head act grows tiresome. I don't mind the hysteria (revel in it, in fact) but it seems like y'all could mix it up a bit. Under what exact conditions did Trump specify that the fire and fury will be triggered, if at all? He didn't. Only morons set "red lines" that have no intention of responding to. As for the uses of rhetoric in world affairs, I don't think it's Trump that's being historically illiterate.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-iran-idUSN2224332720080422
Good one, Barry! In 2008, Hillary Clinton regarding Iran: "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them," she said.
Hope you have a speedy recovery, BL.
Thanks for the interest and sympathy! Curiously uplifting.
No, no MRI, not at the Urgent Care. Lady wanted to sell me gout pills (please, no! But colchicine is cheap, right? Assuming it works, and doesn't make your skin peel off?). But it felt like a soft tissue thing, not grinding in a joint.
Biliff me, comrades, am in market for second opinion.* I guess it's going to have to wait till I get a proper podiatrist/ortho to look at it...at least she didn't want to amputate! I seem to recall a former President of the United States saying that doctors like to make money that way. Anyway, podiatrists appear to be busy folks.
If anything interesting develops, will advise. Thanks again for good wishes, I really wasn't fishing.
*was Althouse where I heard of "Comrade Detective" on AMZN Video? Wet-your-pants funny.
Howard: "Nice deflect, Drago. Your point is "Your Fuckup is just as bad as Our Fuckup."
That was not my point.
You can tell that wasn't my point because I didn't make that point.
In the future, a good clue as to what my point is NOT s my not making it.
I hope this helps.
Perhaps you are driven to these false conclusions due to your heroic military service. If so, I hope the VA is treating you well.
I harp on the medicine being cheap part because apparently the first medicine they give you for gout is cheap and if it works you're all set. The next ones are hellishly expensive and may have freakish side effects. Course I'm hoping it's not gout at all. I really don't like taking pills.
BL, did your blood work show elevated uric acid or creatinine? Did they take a sample of fluid from the joint to test for uric acid crystals? If these show up then it probably is. If not, you need further tests and examination.
Probably is gout, that is.
They took blood and urine but results tomorrow.
J. Farmer said...
@Achilles:
Just out of curiosity, where do you come down on the whole pro-life/pro-abortion divide?
It is not a decision the government should be involved with until 10-24 weeks and it should intercede at that point to protect the life of the child.
I think any type of selective abortion is amoral. Particularly sex selective abortion and the killing of Downs babies.
The Toothless Revolutionary said...
No. They point is to kill him and all of his supporters. After we wiped out their Army we would move in, invest the place, and start putting heads on spikes at the gates.
Hopefully with a rebate from all those handsomely rewarded military contractors, to the point of being free of charge!
I love cost-free military adventures.
This is in response to an attack on Guam you know right?
Do you think there would be no cost to just ignoring an attack?
I have stood in enough formations for dead friends to know exactly what the cost is by the way.
The Toothless Revolutionary said...
I think Clinton's use is mitigated by the fact that back then the NORK standoffs were just becoming more belligerent and not accompanied by the capacity for nukes on their part. Trump gets in after we've been dealing with this stuff for 20 or more years. The right language and diplomatic approach for dealing with their tantrums should be a little more practiced and better understood at this point.
Exactly. We should look at everything Clinton and Bush did as a complete failure in terms of North Korea.
We should look at Obama repeating the exact same mistakes with Iran as a colossal stupidity.
We should also determine if the Uniparty is just trying to build up as many little tinpot dictators in order to start as many wars and conflicts as they can. Clinton to Bush to Obama and each one destabilized more and started more wars we have no intention of finishing than his predecessor.
J. Farmer said... As for this "litany of man-made disasters from believing that something could never happen and thus dismissing it," I never said something could "never happen" and thus is worth being dismissed.
No, your exact words were "I cannot imagine a situation where Kim Jung Un was really "going down" but still had the power to launch nuclear weapons," after which you went on to dismiss the notion entirely in how you perceived the Kim regime might act.
Apparently you can imagine him "going down" due to US aggression and using nukes against us (otherwise their deterrence value is zero), but cannot imagine him launching a barrage of strikes on his myriad of enemies (including the US), should he be "going down" from any source other than a US-lead direct attack.
Frankly, anything which pushes him out of power is likely to be "outed" as a US-lead attack. Whether it were economic or military pressure from China, or an internal coup, for two such examples, Kim would immediately label it "US-backed" to both delegitimize it and square it with his past prophecies.
Most deterrents are about cause and effect: "you leave me alone, I leave you alone". With an actual madman, it's more complicated. Kim's approach may well be "everybody leave me alone or I'll kill you all".
To that some would respond "then everybody leave him alone!" But the wise person would have to ask themselves how comfortable they are living in a world where they face a nuclear strike irrespective of their own actions. That is not so much standard nuclear deterrence, as it is a global suicide pact to be activated at any time.
If one is "going down" and smiting his enemies in the process, the deterrent effect of our own 6800 nukes goes to zero.
It appears now some of us may have known about Li'l Kim's Nukes-to-Go since 2013:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/08/09/obama-administration-knew-about-north-koreas-miniaturized-nukes.html
"Tuesday's bombshell Washington Post story that the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) has determined North Korea is capable of constructing miniaturized nuclear weapons that could be used as warheads for missiles – possibly ICBMs – left out a crucial fact: DIA actually concluded this in 2013. The Post also failed to mention that the Obama administration tried to downplay and discredit this report at the time."
I hate it when I'm always the last to know
J. Farmer said...
The Iranian deal was one of the very few positives to come out of the Obama administration...
8/9/17, 2:38 PM
That statement is funny on so many levels, just two of which are:
1) The fact that you are stating it as a positive event, you approved of it, and you actually believe it was a positive event.
2) Most realists understand that it was a complete and total capitulation by the Obama administration. Out and out bribery to "pretend to play nice for a few months - until after the election). No more, no less.
3) That "promise" was a typical Obama "ram it through and force the Rs to fight it post fact" from the most transparent administration ever that was headed by a lawyer in the field of Constitutional law.
But sure, Trump is the "problem"...
@Kevin:
Frankly, anything which pushes him out of power is likely to be "outed" as a US-lead attack. Whether it were economic or military pressure from China, or an internal coup, for two such examples, Kim would immediately label it "US-backed" to both delegitimize it and square it with his past prophecies.
Someone simultaneously pushed out of power but still retains the power to launch nuclear weapons which will bring his country destruction is the scenario I cannot imagine happening. Not the same thing as it can "never happen." Kim Jung Un could step down from power. I can't imagine a scenario where that would happen, but it still could happen.
With an actual madman, it's more complicated.
And again, I don't think there is any evidence that he is a "madman." But I will repeat a statement a made on the topic earlier in the thread:
And if it were true that Kim was sufficiently irrational that he would go to war with a superpower, he can already do that. If he wanted to provoke a war, he could start attacking US or South Korean troops or civilians immediately. What is stopping him from doing that? If we concede that conventional military deterrence is containing the North Koreans, then why wouldn't nuclear deterrence contain him. He won't risk conventional military attack, but he will risk nuclear war?
@Todd:
1) Yes, obviously, I believe it was a good deal. I said so at the time and have said so ever since.
2) And who are these realists?
3) None of this has anything to do with what I think about the deal
But sure, Trump is the "problem"
To the degree that he tries to undo a good deal for the United States, yes. In other respects, like ending the stupid CIA training and arming program in Syria, Trump is the solution. It's not really about being Team Obama vs Team Trump. It's about assessing the respective policies on their own terms.
When you go to war, make sure your troops stand in long lines wearing red coats, on an open field. To do otherwise would be unpresidented.
I really don't think people understand what diplomacy - as in communicating with others who may or may not be physically hostile to you - actually entails.
There's also a lot which goes on that we don't know about; ironic that we know less now, in the info age, than we used to.
J. Farmer said...
To the degree that he tries to undo a good deal for the United States
8/10/17, 7:55 AM
That appears to be part of this "un-crossable divide" (between our positions). You actually believe this was a good deal for the U.S. I find that both exceedingly sad and exceedingly funny.
@Todd:
I find that both exceedingly sad and exceedingly funny.
Well, quite frankly, your emotional reaction to it is of no interest to me. The US gave up next to nothing in the JCPOA, save sanction relief, and extracted numerous concessions from Iran above and beyond what is even permitted to them under the NPT. The JCPOA places on enrichment and uranium stockpile, provides for continuous monitoring of Iran's uranium mills and mines and its centrifuge production facilities and allows for access to undeclared sites. The JCPOA's implementation is overseen by a committee that includes members of the P5+1, EU, and Iran. The Trump administration recently certified that the Iranians are in compliance with the JCPOA.
Do you deny that you are happy for the Iranians to have nuclear weapons and become the regional hegemon?
J. Farmer said...
The US gave up next to nothing in the JCPOA, save sanction relief, and supposedly extracted numerous concessions from Iran above and beyond what is even permitted to them under the NPT. The JCPOA places unverifiable limits on enrichment and uranium stockpile, provides for unverifiable but feel good continuous monitoring of Iran's uranium mills and mines and its centrifuge production facilities and allows for supposed access to undeclared sites. The JCPOA's implementation is overseen by a committee that includes ineffective and toothless members of the P5+1, EU, and Iran. The Trump administration recently certified that the Iranians are in compliance with the JCPOA based on what they were permitted to see and access and on reports by others based on what they were permitted to see and access.
8/10/17, 9:00 AM
Fixed it for you, you are welcome...
Do you deny that you are happy for the Iranians to have nuclear weapons and become the regional hegemon?
He can't conceive of Kim launching nukes at the US for any reason short of a US invasion. Why would he object to Iran getting the bomb?
It's just standard nuclear deterrence. Hell, in the future we'll all carry small nukes when we leave our homes.
@Bad Lieutenant:
Do you deny that you are happy for the Iranians to have nuclear weapons and become the regional hegemon?
Yes, I deny both of those things. Iran is nowhere near being a regional hegemon. It has no significant ability to project significant military power outside its borders. Its military is vastly worse funded and less technologically advanced as the Arab gulf states. Iran's biggest ally in the region, Syria, has been fighting a violent insurgency against its rule and has required Iranian support. That is not a net win for Iran. The other two much ballyhooed allies of Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, are two very small organizations whose primary concern is to agitate the Israeli occupation. On the global scale, Hezbollah and Hamas are pretty insignificant.
@Todd:
based on what they were permitted to see and access and on reports by others based on what they were permitted to see and access.
One more time...inspectors have access to any sites they want, including any undeclared site. Not only are mining, milling, and centrifuge production under 24/7 video surveillance, inspectors have regular onsite access. Individual members of the Joint Commission are free to form their own opinions of compliance. And SoS Tillerson agrees with the IAEA inspectors report that Iran is in compliance. If there is evidence that Iran is not in compliance, it hasn't materialized. So what is the basis for your position that Iran is not complying with the JCPOA?
@Kevin:
It's just standard nuclear deterrence. Hell, in the future we'll all carry small nukes when we leave our homes.
If Iran did obtain nuclear weapons, I do not believe that they would initiate a nuclear first-strike and risk being obliterated. Again, political actors tend not to be suicidal. They may miscalculate in conventional military terms (see Saakashvili's sloppy handling with Russia), but they also tend to be driven by self-preservation. India and Pakistan have fought fought four wars since the late 1940s and have current territorial disputes over Kashmir. What is keeping them from launching nuclear weapons against each other?
Per J. Farmer Again, political actors tend not to be suicidal.
Unless, of course, they are devout Muslims who believe that wiping Israel off the map is serving Allah.
J. Farmer said...
One more time...inspectors have access to any sites they want, including any undeclared site. Not only are mining, milling, and centrifuge production under 24/7 video surveillance, inspectors have regular onsite access. Individual members of the Joint Commission are free to form their own opinions of compliance. And SoS Tillerson agrees with the IAEA inspectors report that Iran is in compliance. If there is evidence that Iran is not in compliance, it hasn't materialized. So what is the basis for your position that Iran is not complying with the JCPOA?
8/10/17, 10:37 AM
My reason for stating that they are non-compliant is that there is no reliable proof that they are compliant.
It is their country. They have an ENTIRE country to hide shit in. This "inspectors have access to any sites they want, including any undeclared site" is a statement I would have assumed you were too smart to make. If the site is "undeclared" how do the inspectors know where it is at and if an "undeclared" site is discovered, is that by its very nature proof that they are not in compliance?
Do you not see the issue? We (meaning anyone) have not gone through their entire country (like the DEA goes through a drug house) to uncover "everything". We only know about what they let us know about.
Inspectors can inspect anything? With how much warning? Who takes them there and who is with them while they "inspect"?
How utterly naive are you?
And in order to enable this farce, Obama gave them pallets of cash. PALLETS! To top it off, there are folks that claim with a straight face that "this was a good deal", that Obama "did good". Give me a friggen brake.
Susan Rice, correcting us in the New York Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/10/opinion/susan-rice-trump-north-korea.html
"But war is not necessary to achieve prevention, despite what some in the Trump administration seem to have concluded. History shows that we can, if we must, tolerate nuclear weapons in North Korea — the same way we tolerated the far greater threat of thousands of Soviet nuclear weapons during the Cold War.
It will require being pragmatic.
First, though we can never legitimize North Korea as a nuclear power,..."
Susan Rice: "I can, if I must, tolerate you sodomizing me. But I will never legitimize you sodomizing me."
"...we know it is highly unlikely to relinquish its sizable arsenal because Mr. Kim deems the weapons essential to his regime’s survival. The North can now reportedly reach United States territory with its ICBMs. The challenge is to ensure that it would never try.
By most assessments, Mr. Kim is vicious and impetuous, but not irrational. Thus, while we quietly continue to refine our military options, we can rely on traditional deterrence by making crystal clear that any use of nuclear weapons against the United States or its allies would result in annihilation of North Korea. Defense Secretary James Mattis struck this tone on Wednesday. The same red line must apply to any proof that North Korea has transferred nuclear weapons to another state or nonstate actor."
Susan Rice: "Any use of nuclear weapons against the United States or its allies would result in annihilation of North Korea. If we uncover any proof that North Korea has transferred nuclear weapons to another state or nonstate actor, we will apply that same red line, resulting in the annihilation of North Korea, even if Kim Jong-un is simply enjoying a bowl of noodles on his patio at the time."
Poor old Anthony Scaramucci got booted for referring to Steve Bannon sucking his own cock, but there's nothing if not entirely self-absorbed intellectual auto-fellatio and auto-cunnilingus afoot in much of this discussion of North Korea, people simply bobbing, enchanted, like a pump jack, utterly enthralled by the sound of their own words, a ouroborous of conclusions offered as premises, premises as conclusions, a perfect self-contained circle, unbreakable and unbroken.
@Todd:
My reason for stating that they are non-compliant is that there is no reliable proof that they are compliant.
Yes, there is. Why do you think the Trump administration confirmed compliance? Why has the IAEA confirmed compliance? The JCPOA outlines steps Iran must take, including establishing a procurement channel for dual use and nuclear-related technology, making alterations to reactors, etc. The IAEA has confirmed that Iran has taken the steps required it to take under the JCPOA.
It is their country. They have an ENTIRE country to hide shit in.
Building reactors and enrichment plants is highly industrial, technical program. Plus, the IAEA has 24/7 monitoring of the entire fuel cycle, including at places like at the Gchine mine in Bandar Abbas.
Anyone can cheat the terms of any deal. The mere possibility of cheating does not mean that someone is cheating. If you say someone is cheating, you need to prove evidence. And all the evidence we do have suggests that there isn't cheating. And even if you take Obama out of the equation, the deal was supported by the UK, France, Germany, China, Russia, and the EU.
Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip the dogs of war.
Susan Rice: The North can now reportedly reach United States territory with its ICBMs. The challenge is to ensure that it would never try.
No, the challenge was to block his access which you failed to do. To now change the goalposts is to deflect the personal failure.
Susan Rice: Any use of nuclear weapons against the United States or its allies would result in annihilation of North Korea. If we uncover any proof that North Korea has transferred nuclear weapons to another state or nonstate actor, we will apply that same red line, resulting in the annihilation of North Korea, even if Kim Jong-un is simply enjoying a bowl of noodles on his patio at the time.
Oh please. I don't buy the "we will annihilate them" line. Even from Trump. We will react proportionally, as per the Geneva Convention and everyone knows it. If Kim launches one missile we will do what's necessary to keep him from launching a second. Nothing more, nothing less. The idea that it would take the "annihilation" of his country to do so is ridiculous.
And as for "the annihilation of North Korea" because Kim transferred nuclear weapons, well that's even more of a ridiculous lie. We're not nuking Kim because he illegally sold technology, let alone taking the extra step of wiping out his entire country for Kim's actions.
It's just this kind of impotent language which got us to our present state. It's just this kind of fantasy - that Kim would NEVER do something we'd disapprove of because we'd overreact - which belies the weakness with which we've handled him and allowed this situation to develop.
If Kim bombs the any part of the US--including Guam--- we should annihilate North Korea. Failure to do so would encourage Iran and anyone else to do likewise with impunity.
If Kim bombs the any part of the US--including Guam--- we should annihilate North Korea. Failure to do so would encourage Iran and anyone else to do likewise with impunity.
Any use of the US nuclear stockpile will make everyone else think twice. Overkill leaves the President open to charges of being a "war criminal" by the left, makes Korean reunification harder, and sends more fallout than necessary over Japan.
War criminal? How so? Even if we declare war on North Korea? What is your suggestion?
PS: It's high time to stop worrying about charges from the left. They have been calling him Hitler for two years!
Do you think the NorKs read our blogs? Do you think they are emboldened by the reluctance of Americans to retaliate?
War criminal? How so? Even if we declare war on North Korea? What is your suggestion?
That the idea of proportional response has been accepted by the world community.
Proportionality is a general principle in law which covers several special (although related) concepts. The concept of proportionality is used as a criterion of fairness and justice in statutory interpretation processes, especially in constitutional law, as a logical method intended to assist in discerning the correct balance between the restriction imposed by a corrective measure and the severity of the nature of the prohibited act. Within criminal law, it is used to convey the idea that the punishment of an offender should fit the crime. Under international humanitarian law governing the legal use of force in an armed conflict, proportionality and distinction are important factors in assessing military necessity.
And since anyone can be called a "war criminal" these days, the idea of Trump being called one, or even tried in The Hague, for responding disproportionately seems almost certain.
Do you think the NorKs read our blogs? Do you think they are emboldened by the reluctance of Americans to retaliate?
I think they're too busy listening to China lecture them on how bad it would be if they launched their next ICBM within 25 miles of Guam.
The plan:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-10/pentagon-unveils-plan-pre-emptive-strike-north-korea-b-1-bombers
That the idea of proportional response has been accepted by the world community.
That's only because the 'world community' is comprised of nitwits. Why should a response to an UNPROVOKED FIRST STRIKE be proportional?
Everyone who expressed their concern, thank you again, my ankle is much better today. They had their way with me at Urgent Care, blood work, urine, x-rays, everything came back fine, it's just an ache. I guess I'm getting old.
Howard, when I first saw a melatonin pills they were 10 mg but now I get 3mg at Costco in a huge bottle for cheap and they seem to work just fine.
Generally I sleep great. But sometimes there's noise and then I like a little extra edge.
You know, when they talk about proportionate response, I think of Israel finding retarded kids and strapping them up with explosives and sending them into Palestinian cafes. Doesn't sound so good when you put it that way, does it?
BL, nice to hear you are on the mend! :-)
Kevin said...
That the idea of proportional response has been accepted by the world community.
8/10/17, 3:22 PM
The proper definition of "proportional response" for a minor league dictator like litl Kim (if Trump is feeling charitable) is to reduce the capitol to a sheet of glass. That will spare the majority of the country (and innocents), demonstrate that America does not take too kindly to being f*cked with, shows we are NOT afraid to use the big stick, and sends a message to the other tin-pots to not screw with us.
He came into office as a Nazi, Hitler, a war criminal, and "icky", so F*CK them all.
Also, I would support such "over-reacting" use of force to any aggression initiated by others against the U.S. no matter who sits in the big chair. Problem is Ds only contemplate such a move when their poll numbers are in the crapper and in those cases, the targets need not have actually done anything wrong, they are selected for continence and plausibility, not necessity.
Just kill him. Or if you want to be super refined, put a cabbage's head in his bed. The only thing KJU cares about is his own welfare. Everyone and everything else in NK can vanish, if only he is left with his toys. The entire nation is a thing, a shield or sword to be held between him and whatever enemies.
Go around the shield and come at him direct.
If Kim didn't have widespread support some NorKs would have taken him out by now. This was our fallacy with Castro's Cuba in the 60's. Do you really think the country would have cheered had we succeeded in his assassination?
Post a Comment