President Trump & the USA

[leicsmac]

5 hours ago, Beechey said:

Sorry mate, but history proves otherwise. In the 50's they knew full well the US would likely back NK up and they invaded regardless. I'm not saying it will happen, and I';m not saying NK could even face SK on their own and win, but removing an integral part of SK defence that's been ever-present since the end of the Korean War on the back on an unproven agreement seems foolish and naive. That's without even mentioning halting the war games, which you might argue is an even bigger blunder if this thing doesn't work out.

 

I'm sorry too Beechey, but I'm not sure what you're advocating for here - are you saying that the US should continue the drills and make no concessions about the possibility of US troops being withdrawn from Korea while at the same time insisting that the NK's get rid of their nuclear weapons? That sounds lie exactly the kind of idea that has gotten nowhere in previous years. What do the drills really do other than present an antagonistic image of being ready for war? Some clarity would be appreciated, here.

 

With regards to a possible NK invasion of SK, I (like breadandcheese, I think) think you are overstating the role the current US presence in SK has on that matter. I'm no armchair general but from what I've been told while over there it's very likely Seoul would be abandoned (as it is just the kind of meatgrinder fighting the NK's would be able to level the playing field at) as while it has cultural and a certain strategic value, miltarily it makes much more sense to withdraw further south to a more easily defendable line (where any air and artillery support for the NK's is negated), blunt the initial surge there, and then counterattack conclusively. What US forces there are there now would be merely symbolic in all of this - not integral, not without further support that would arrive in a timely fashion should the US troops be there in the first place or not.

Edited 13 June 2018 by leicsmac

[Bryn]

9 hours ago, MattP said:

A couple on here at the time, I think @ozleicester claimed that the North Korean's (ironic) were only fighting against US imperialism and I think Friendly Ram also said he was a consequence of US policy.

The whole thing shows the benefits of having a someone who is a bit of a nutter in charge at times, no other US President (well maybe Andrew Jackson) would have got Kim to the table as they would never have believed someone was crazy enough to actually act on the threats, with Trump people did actually think that he might do it/

 

NK are at the table because they now have nuclear weapons. Trump has probably drawn them out quicker than most would but they were always going to start strutting on the international stage once they had their safety net.

[Beechey]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I'm sorry too Beechey, but I'm not sure what you're advocating for here - are you saying that the US should continue the drills and make no concessions about the possibility of US troops being withdrawn from Korea while at the same time insisting that the NK's get rid of their nuclear weapons? That sounds lie exactly the kind of idea that has gotten nowhere in previous years. What do the drills really do other than present an antagonistic image of being ready for war? Some clarity would be appreciated, here.

 

With regards to a possible NK invasion of SK, I (like breadandcheese, I think) think you are overstating the role the current US presence in SK has on that matter. I'm no armchair general but from what I've been told while over there it's very likely Seoul would be abandoned (as it is just the kind of meatgrinder fighting the NK's would be able to level the playing field at) as while it has cultural and a certain strategic value, miltarily it makes much more sense to withdraw further south to a more easily defendable line (where any air and artillery support for the NK's is negated), blunt the initial surge there, and then counterattack conclusively. What US forces there are there now would be merely symbolic in all of this - not integral, not without further support that would arrive in a timely fashion should the US troops be there in the first place or not.

 

No not at all, but I'm saying it's naive to assume whatever Kim says will happen. NK should be the actor to act first, and the US should reciprocate. North Korea is the aggressive nation in this peninsular after all. The drills keep readiness of the armed forces, they're actually vital for any armed forces, conflict after conflict shows that the better drilled and trained forces often stand a much better chance of success than an poorly drilled one. We don't know if they're just going to be ending the annual wargames, or whether it will be any wargames in that region though, it's uncertain. In response to the second point, you are largely correct, Seoul would be evacuated as much as it could be within the time the SK's know something is up. More importantly, it would probably be levelled before an evacuation could happen, which means it's important to be able to strike bombardment points and remove them from range of the city.

 

US forces personnel in the region number roughly 30,000, but as breadandcheese alluded to, the air assets are where the US holds the balance in the region (again, Trump being so vague means we have no idea if they will stay or not). Importantly, South Korea wants them to stay because as I said, having them there means an attack on SK will inevitably draw the US into a conflict. US forces in the region would almost certainly act as a command and control body, rather than frontline fighting until tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of US reinforcements arrive. Of that, you're totally right.

 

Unless there is hard proof that NK will carry out its side of this agreement and not renege on them, as they've done so often before, US forces should move precisely nowhere.

 

I'm also a bit perplexed by Trump complaining about "great cost" of the US Forces South Korea deployment when he just increased their defence budget by 120% UK's worth of spending.

Edited 13 June 2018 by Beechey

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, Beechey said:

No not at all, but I'm saying it's naive to assume whatever Kim says will happen. NK should be the actor to act first, and the US should reciprocate. North Korea is the aggressive nation in this peninsular after all. The drills keep readiness of the armed forces, they're actually vital for any armed forces, conflict after conflict shows that the better drilled and trained forces often stand a much better chance of success than an poorly drilled one. We don't know if they're just going to be ending the annual wargames, or whether it will be any wargames in that region though, it's uncertain. In response to the second point, you are largely correct, Seoul would be evacuated as much as it could be within the time the SK's know something is up. More importantly, it would probably be levelled before an evacuation could happen, which means it's important to be able to strike bombardment points and remove them from range of the city.

 

US forces personnel in the region number roughly 30,000, but as breadandcheese alluded to, the air assets are where the US holds the balance in the region (again, Trump being so vague means we have no idea if they will stay or not). Importantly, South Korea wants them to stay because as I said, having them there means an attack on SK will inevitably draw the US into a conflict. US forces in the region would almost certainly act as a command and control body, rather than frontline fighting until tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of US reinforcements arrive. Of that, you're totally right.

 

Unless there is hard proof that NK will carry out its side of this agreement and not renege on them, as they've done so often before, US forces should move precisely nowhere.

 

I'm also a bit perplexed by Trump complaining about "great cost" of the US Forces South Korea deployment when he just increased their defence budget by 120% UK's worth of spending.

 

I'd certainly agree that the NK's should be acting first in good faith in this regard, but a little bit of proactive good faith from the US might not be the worst thing to happen. Ditto on the drills and the lack of joined-up thinking regarding what is exactly going to happen with them and the whole costing thing.

 

As regards the air units, I would have thought they would be faster to mobilise and use than boots on the ground anyway, and so if things were ever to get horrible over there they could be deployed in reasonably short order to win the first part of any conflict by gaining air superiority and neutralising any ground big guns the NK's had.

 

Honestly, I don't think the troops will go anywhere until the NK's at least begin to stick to their side of the bargain - but it being offered up as a condition in any agreement isn't a bad thing in of itself.

[Guest]

It's like reading Matty's posts:

 

Check out @Mikel_Jollett’s Tweet:

 

[MC Prussian]

"Geraldo Rivera - correspondent at-large."

Oh, deary me. Guy puts more effort in his moustache than in his political ramblings.

 

And giving Trump the Nobel Peace Prize would tarnish its reputation forever.

Donald Trump. Nobel Peace Prize.

[MC Prussian]

On 12/06/2018 at 09:45, ozleicester said:

It gives more power to Kim, his hundreds/thousands of murders are ignored by the POTUS. His treatment of his people is effectively justified by the leader of the free world putting him on an even platform.

 

The implication to other dictators is.. stick with it, they will come to you eventually.

 

Are you happy for the POTUS to meet with Al Assad as well?

Who says the murders are "ignored"?

 

Justice will come. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but it will. At some stage, the North Koreans responsible for torture, experiments, murder, famine, poverty, surveillance will be held accountable and the victims honored.

 

Let's also ignore that South Korea talked extensively with their Northern neighbors before Trump had a change of heart - would you like to chastise the South Korean leader also as much?

Trump needed to make a U-Turn because he was dangerously close of losing a massive face to World Politics.

 

Lots of black-painting of walls here.

[Nick]

 

 

https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=ueZfg_1528650312

[breadandcheese]

38 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

 

 

https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=ueZfg_1528650312

Hahahahaa. That is very well done.

[Guest FriendlyRam]

He's being sued by the new york AG  along with his family as well 

 

He's innocent in everything though 

[Kopfkino]

Trump Told World Leaders Crimea Is Russian Because Everyone There Speaks Russian

https://www.buzzfeed.com/albertonardelli/trump-russia-crimea?utm_term=.blnxv8mEn#.ylda8dkrq

 

Man is daft. Worryingly his logic makes him English. 

[Wymsey]

 

https://tenor.com/view/trump-kim-funny-trump-kim-kim-jong-un-funny-gif-11995972 

[bovril]

 

[lifted*fox]

she ain't wrong tbf

[Dr The Singh]

The Americans love him, the economy is doing great, they've got more jobs then people, 4% GDP is amazing.

[Guest MattP]

16 hours ago, Dr The Singh said:

The Americans love him, the economy is doing great, they've got more jobs then people, 4% GDP is amazing.

Certainly on course for re-election, overall doing a pretty good job.

[leicsmac]

17 hours ago, Dr The Singh said:

The Americans love him, the economy is doing great, they've got more jobs then people, 4% GDP is amazing.

 

39 minutes ago, MattP said:

Certainly on course for re-election, overall doing a pretty good job.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo

 

Approval ratings on average lower than anyone apart from Ford over time, and disapproval ratings higher than any over time since records began. Approval ratings among blacks around 10%, and with Latinos around 20-25%.

 

So...some Americans (most of a very specific demographic) love him.

 

As for re-election, I think this ground has been covered before: if 2020 is all about the economy and nothing else, and he somehow manages to convince various ethnic minorities to stay away from the polling booth as what happened, then he stands a chance.

[Kopfkino]

35 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

As for re-election, I think this ground has been covered before: if 2020 is all about the economy and nothing else, and he somehow manages to convince various ethnic minorities to stay away from the polling booth as what happened, then he stands a chance.

 

I think the economy is being taken too much for granted tbf. Look at how the yield curve is behaving, the market seems to be expecting a downturn 2020/2021. Some economists seem to be expecting it too. Will it come soon enough to be a factor though?

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

I think the economy is being taken too much for granted tbf. Look at how the yield curve is behaving, the market seems to be expecting a downturn 2020/2021. Some economists seem to be expecting it too. Will it come soon enough to be a factor though?

Good question, and one that I don't know nearly enough about to give an answer to tbh.

 

I do know that it is the one factor that could play in Trumps favour in 2020 should it still be good, however.

[Jattdogg]

2 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

 

I think the economy is being taken too much for granted tbf. Look at how the yield curve is behaving, the market seems to be expecting a downturn 2020/2021. Some economists seem to be expecting it too. Will it come soon enough to be a factor though?

He will blame obama if it does. 

[foxile5]

He runs the country like an autistic - savant. 

 

Want to ease tensions on the Korean peninsula? Antagonise the dictator and ostracise the South Korean pm. 

 

Its worrying how some of it seems to be working. 

[Guest MattP]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Good question, and one that I don't know nearly enough about to give an answer to tbh.

 

I do know that it is the one factor that could play in Trumps favour in 2020 should it still be good, however.

Ironic that the left wing populism side of his politics could ruin him if he gets two terms.

 

The rust-belt is going to be the key, if the Democrats can't win that back I can't see a route to them winning.

[breadandcheese]

3 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

 

I think the economy is being taken too much for granted tbf. Look at how the yield curve is behaving, the market seems to be expecting a downturn 2020/2021. Some economists seem to be expecting it too. Will it come soon enough to be a factor though?

I agree. He's pushing a fiscal blitz at the top of an economic cycle. That can't be smart. The economy could be his achilles heel.

[leicsmac]

32 minutes ago, MattP said:

Ironic that the left wing populism side of his politics could ruin him if he gets two terms.

 

The rust-belt is going to be the key, if the Democrats can't win that back I can't see a route to them winning.

 

 

Agreed, and IMO he needs to repeat a perfect storm of circumstances in order to win again, rather than the Dems having to win it back, considering how narrow the margin of victory in a lot of those states.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

The space race is back on. Trump want's another manned mission to the moon, and Mars, Not only that he hopes for a Space Force! 

 

Is this just nonsense, or has Trump, completely lost his marbles, and just wants to spend billions of dollars, that could be used to help America's shaky economy?