Not to sound ignorant

[Burney]

You would describe the Cuban missile crisis as Kennedy coming close to tipping the world into nuclear war?

You could make a pretty strong argument that he did very well to stop it from happening.

In response to a nuclear threat to US territory, he chose to escalate the situation to the brink of nuclear war. That he may have been right to do so and the fact that we got back from that brink don't alter that fact.
My point is that nobody calls him mad for those actions.

[Monty92]

In response to a nuclear threat to US territory, he chose to escalate the situation to the brink of nuclear war. That he may have been right to do so and the fact that we got back from that brink don't alter that fact.
My point is that nobody calls him mad for those actions.

People aren't calling Trump mad for his actions on NK so far. They're expressing concern that if he is indeed mad, or more likely of a psychologically imbalanced personality type, then we have reason to fear that the racheting up of the rhetoric that we've heard from him is a harbinger of his inclinations to actually put his threats into practice, even if doing so was a terrible idea.

Of course, his willingness to put his threats into practice must be real, otherwise they are meaningless as a deterrent. But that benefit is predicated on the assumption that doing so would be the right and neccesary decision.

[Burney]

People aren't calling Trump mad for his actions on NK so far. They're expressing concern that if he is indeed mad, or more likely of a psychologically imbalanced personality type, then we have reason to fear that the racheting up of the rhetoric that we've heard from him is a harbinger of his inclinations to actually put his threats into practice, even if doing so was a terrible idea.

Of course, his willingness to put his threats into practice must be real, otherwise they are meaningless as a deterrent. But that benefit is predicated on the assumption that doing so would be the right and neccesary decision.

Well that presupposes an awful lot of things, though, doesn't it? First that Trump's idiosyncracies mean he's psychologically imbalanced. That's seems to be more about the prejudices of his critics than anything else.

The other supposition, of course, is that smashing NK would be a bad idea.

[Monty92]

Well that presupposes an awful lot of things, though, doesn't it? First that Trump's idiosyncracies mean he's psychologically imbalanced. That's seems to be more about the prejudices of his critics than anything else.

The other supposition, of course, is that smashing NK would be a bad idea.

There may well be scenarios in which smashing NK was a good idea. But the fears are based on a concern that he is also capable of smashing NK when it is a fundamentally bad idea. Clever types often talk about the risks of political/military miscalculations that can forge an unintended and irreversible path to war. Someone with Trump's manifest personality idiosyncracies strikes most of us as the clearest example of someone more likely to commit such an error than most others you may expect to find in such a position of power.

[Burney]

There may well be scenarios in which smashing NK was a good idea. But the fears are based on a concern that he is also capable of smashing NK when it is a fundamentally bad idea. Clever types often talk about the risks of political/military miscalculations that can forge an unintended and irreversible path to war. Someone with Trump's manifest personality idiosyncracies strikes most of us as the clearest example of someone more likely to commit such an error than most others you may expect to find in such a position of power.

If you're saying that personality often dictates action, well duh. However, I think the mistake with Trump is to let his presentational and rhetorical tics blind you to his actual actions. When it comes to actual executive action, there isn't actually much evidence of him being this hot-headed wildcard he's made out to be.

[World's End Stella]

In response to a nuclear threat to US territory, he chose to escalate the situation to the brink of nuclear war. That he may have been right to do so and the fact that we got back from that brink don't alter that fact.
My point is that nobody calls him mad for those actions.

The way you phrased it implied that he had initiated the conflict that brought us close to nuclear war when in fact he reacted to extreme provocation very cautiously and diplomatically. He was under a lot of pressure from people like Lemay to bomb the Cuban missile sites (now that would have been escalation) but chose instead to use the embargo and diplomacy to resolve the situation.

Not sure anyone would consider him mad for the way he handled it, it was one if his finest moments.

[Burney]

The way you phrased it implied that he had initiated the conflict that brought us close to nuclear war when in fact he reacted to extreme provocation very cautiously and diplomatically. He was under a lot of pressure from people like Lemay to bomb the Cuban missile sites (now that would have been escalation) but chose instead to use the embargo and diplomacy to resolve the situation.

Not sure anyone would consider him mad for the way he handled it, it was one if his finest moments.

To be fair, that 'extreme provocation' was only the same provocation the Russians endured when the US Atlas missiles were stationed in Turkey (Americans don't tend to mention that aspect). It could be argued that Kennedy's reaction was excessively precipitous - although whether he had any choice other than to react that way in the face of public reaction to missiles in Cuba is another question.

In all honestly, though, the situation you describe is analogous - albeit not identical - to Trump's vis-a-vis North Korea. Extreme nuclear provocation and threats to US territory, interests and allies. My beef is that Trump as POTUS is legitimately entitled to react in the way he has, but is castigated for it purely because people don't like him rather on the merits of his actions.

[Monty92]

To be fair, that 'extreme provocation' was only the same provocation the Russians endured when the US Atlas missiles were stationed in Turkey (Americans don't tend to mention that aspect). It could be argued that Kennedy's reaction was excessively precipitous - although whether he had any choice other than to react that way in the face of public reaction to missiles in Cuba is another question.

In all honestly, though, the situation you describe is analogous - albeit not identical - to Trump's vis-a-vis North Korea. Extreme nuclear provocation and threats to US territory, interests and allies. My beef is that Trump as POTUS is legitimately entitled to react in the way he has, but is castigated for it purely because people don't like him rather on the merits of his actions.

Isn't it just the words he used that people didn't like? Fire and fury? If he'd have just said "the gravest issues would arise", a la JFK at the start of the Cuban crisis, no-one would have had much beef.

[Burney]

Isn't it just the words he used that people didn't like? Fire and fury? If he'd have just said "the gravest issues would arise", a la JFK at the start of the Cuban crisis, no-one would have had much beef.

And yet old Barry O'Bama said this and no-one gave a shít.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...ar-attack-fro/