Click here for Arsenal FC news and reports

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 44

Thread: Not to sound ignorant

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Burney View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Monty92; 08-10-2017 at 01:39 PM.

  2. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Burney View Post
    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.

  3. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by World's End Stella View Post
    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.

  4. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Monty92 View Post
    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.

  5. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Burney View Post
    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.

  6. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Monty92 View Post
    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.

  7. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Burney View Post
    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.

  8. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Monty92 View Post
    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/

  9. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Burney View Post
    And yet old Barry O'Bama said this and no-one gave a shít.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...ar-attack-fro/
    Bit of a naughty headline that rather distorts the sentiment expressed.

    Listen, I'm not going to deny that Trump is treated by different standards. But that's partly just the kind of politics we all engage in, if we're honest, but also a reflection of the fact that his behaviour entitles others to treat him by different standards, imo.

  10. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Burney View Post
    And yet old Barry O'Bama said this and no-one gave a shít.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...ar-attack-fro/
    Wasn't criticised by whom, b? Given that his every step was dogged by certain opponents who challenged his legitimacy as an American citizen and the basis of absolutely bugger all evidence - oh, wait, who was the main cheerleader for that little movement?

    What you regard as prejudices can just as easily be seen as well-grounded fears that his braggadocio makes him completely unfit to deal with situations like this and it's hardly unfair to point this out when it makes the sort of wild statements he did the other day. I do agree that his hasn't actually "done" anything wrong but that doesn't make him any less scary. In fact, for all the fuss about him, he doesn't seem to have done an awful lot apart from talk a lot on Twitter (bearing out the point you've made many times about the President having very little power).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •