"fire and fury like the world has never seen"

Sounds like a line from the book of Exodus. 

It has long been said that Trump blundering into a war is the greatest dangwr. 

I always thought traffic jams were the worst dangwr. 

Last week:

The historical context, from "Napalm" by Robert Neer:

Trump's posture when saying this was that of a guy in a straight-jacket.  

dave said:

Trump's posture when saying this was that of a guy in a straight-jacket.  

Now his lunacy is putting us all in utterly exposed danger. Trump is doing what Sean Hannity is telling him to do.

It's like we are trapped in the back seat of our crazy drunk uncle's Chrysler New Yorker, he's speeding and weaving down the turnpike and we can't do anything to stop him.

blianderson said:

It's like we are trapped in the back seat of our crazy drunk uncle's Chrysler New Yorker, he's speeding and weaving down the turnpike and we can't do anything to stop him.

That's the best description of how I feel. What expression will he have on his face and he stands astride the wreckage of a nuked world.

The South Koreans have, by sheer determination as far as I can see, built a modern, prosperous, reasonably free country over the past 50-60 years, from a flattened, muddy, impoverished vacant lot.  It breaks my heart to see them and their achievements threatened again because one bully can't find a way to disengage from another bully. 

I hope they, and we, escape the worst consequences of this confrontation, as the US dodged the Cuban missile crisis in ?1962; but I have absolutely no faith in the president, and very little in the administration as a whole.  Breaks my heart.

I'm not a Trump supporter but I don't believe he deserves any blame or ridicule (at least not yet) in this very difficult situation. 

North Korea has been a rogue nation and a thorn in the side of the international community for years. previous U.S. Presidents from both parties (Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc.) may have done this or that around the edges of the situation, but nobody ever addressed it full-on. I'm not passing judgment on anyone, as containment and kicking the can down the road is always the path of least resistance and it seems like the best option at the time. But the can-kicking made it pretty much inevitable that it would come to a head at some point. it seems like that point is either here or fast approaching, and Trump will have to deal with it because he's the sitting President.   

I have no problem with the 'fire and fury' language. Gotta try getting through to that NK wackjob somehow.

So tell me, all ye Trump haters, what specifically has he done wrong in this situation, and how would you handle things differently? 

fairplay said:

dave said:

Trump's posture when saying this was that of a guy in a straight-jacket.  

Now his lunacy is putting us all in utterly exposed danger. Trump is doing what Sean Hannity is telling him to do.

No, God.

God has given Trump authority to take out Kim Jong Un

Maybe he could get on the same page with his own team, that would be a nice start.

Trump and Tillerson are saying different things to the press each day.

Smedley said:

I'm not a Trump supporter but I don't believe he deserves any blame or ridicule (at least not yet) in this very difficult situation. 

North Korea has been a rogue nation and a thorn in the side of the international community for years. previous U.S. Presidents from both parties (Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc.) may have done this or that around the edges of the situation, but nobody ever addressed it full-on. I'm not passing judgment on anyone, as containment and kicking the can down the road is always the path of least resistance and it seems like the best option at the time. But the can-kicking made it pretty much inevitable that it would come to a head at some point. it seems like that point is either here or fast approaching, and Trump will have to deal with it because he's the sitting President.   

I have no problem with the 'fire and fury' language. Gotta try getting through to that NK wackjob somehow.

So tell me, all ye Trump haters, what specifically has he done wrong in this situation, and how would you handle things differently? 

Personally I am not keen on Howard Beale having the nuclear codes.

Smedley said:

I'm not a Trump supporter but I don't believe he deserves any blame or ridicule (at least not yet) in this very difficult situation. 

North Korea has been a rogue nation and a thorn in the side of the international community for years. previous U.S. Presidents from both parties (Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc.) may have done this or that around the edges of the situation, but nobody ever addressed it full-on. I'm not passing judgment on anyone, as containment and kicking the can down the road is always the path of least resistance and it seems like the best option at the time. But the can-kicking made it pretty much inevitable that it would come to a head at some point. it seems like that point is either here or fast approaching, and Trump will have to deal with it because he's the sitting President.   

I have no problem with the 'fire and fury' language. Gotta try getting through to that NK wackjob somehow.

So tell me, all ye Trump haters, what specifically has he done wrong in this situation, and how would you handle things differently? 

Just saw a NYT alert that said that Trump's "Fire and Fury" threat was improvised and took everyone in the administration by surprise. 

It all depends on his blood sugar level that day.

author said:

It all depends on his blood sugar level that day.

"What ******* didn't put enough happy chryons in the propaganda file this morning?" 

https://twitter.com/emptywheel...

Back in 1994 Bill Clinton approved a plan for a 4 billion energy aid for North Korea by giving them a atomic reactor if they dismantle its nuclear weapons. Looks like we were made fools of once again. 

The_Soulful_Mr_T said:

Just saw a NYT alert that said that Trump's "Fire and Fury" threat was improvised and took everyone in the administration by surprise. 

I can't find it now, but I read an article that "like the world has never seen" is his default hyperbolic phrase about pretty much everything. One wonders how it was translated into Korean.

dave23 said:

The_Soulful_Mr_T said:

Just saw a NYT alert that said that Trump's "Fire and Fury" threat was improvised and took everyone in the administration by surprise. 

I can't find it now, but I read an article that "like the world has never seen" is his default hyperbolic phrase about pretty much everything. One wonders how it was translated into Korean.

"You will be attacked by invisible angry toasters."

Posted last month, but more relevant than ever:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/...

H. R. 669

To prohibit the conduct of a first-use nuclear strike absent a declaration of war by Congress.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 24, 2017

Mr. Ted Lieu of California (for himself, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Garamendi, Ms. Clarke of New York, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Pocan, Ms. Lee, and Mr. Welch) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

A BILL

To prohibit the conduct of a first-use nuclear strike absent a declaration of war by Congress.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. Short title.

This Act may be cited as the “Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017”.

SEC. 2. Findings and declaration of policy.

(a) Findings.—Congress finds the following:

(1) The Constitution gives Congress the sole power to declare war.

(2) The framers of the Constitution understood that the monumental decision to go to war, which can result in massive death and the destruction of civilized society, must be made by the representatives of the people and not by a single person.

(3) As stated by section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93–148; 50 U.S.C. 1541), “the constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces”.

(4) Nuclear weapons are uniquely powerful weapons that have the capability to instantly kill millions of people, create long-term health and environmental consequences throughout the world, directly undermine global peace, and put the United States at existential risk from retaliatory nuclear strikes.

(5) By any definition of war, a first-use nuclear strike from the United States would constitute a major act of war.

(6) A first-use nuclear strike conducted absent a declaration of war by Congress would violate the Constitution.

(b) Declaration of policy.—It is the policy of the United States that no first-use nuclear strike should be conducted absent a declaration of war by Congress.

SEC. 3. Prohibition on conduct of first-use nuclear strikes.

(a) Prohibition.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the President may not use the Armed Forces of the United States to conduct a first-use nuclear strike unless such strike is conducted pursuant to a declaration of war by Congress that expressly authorizes such strike.

(b) First-Use nuclear strike defined.—In this section, the term “first-use nuclear strike” means an attack using nuclear weapons against an enemy that is conducted without the President determining that the enemy has first launched a nuclear strike against the United States or an ally of the United States.

Sadly, introduced, but not passed.

Maybe even then it wouldn't make a difference. To Trump, et al., laws are regarded like ice cream. Easily melted.

Smedley said:

I'm not a Trump supporter but I don't believe he deserves any blame or ridicule (at least not yet) in this very difficult situation. 

North Korea has been a rogue nation and a thorn in the side of the international community for years. previous U.S. Presidents from both parties (Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc.) may have done this or that around the edges of the situation, but nobody ever addressed it full-on. I'm not passing judgment on anyone, as containment and kicking the can down the road is always the path of least resistance and it seems like the best option at the time. But the can-kicking made it pretty much inevitable that it would come to a head at some point. it seems like that point is either here or fast approaching, and Trump will have to deal with it because he's the sitting President.   

I have no problem with the 'fire and fury' language. Gotta try getting through to that NK wackjob somehow.

So tell me, all ye Trump haters, what specifically has he done wrong in this situation, and how would you handle things differently? 

For "North Korea" substitute "Iraq", "Saddam Hussein", "Khaddafi", "Iran".

And on and on and on...

No way. None of those countries and leaders had/have nuclear weapons. That changes things. 

FrankWarzocha said:

Back in 1994 Bill Clinton approved a plan for a 4 billion energy aid for North Korea by giving them a atomic reactor if they dismantle its nuclear weapons. Looks like we were made fools of once again. 

The reactors -- there were to be two -- were light-water reactors, which do not produce weapons-grade fuel. In any case, the reactors were never completed. In what ways to you think the 1994 Agreed Framework has made fools of us now?

These "Frontline" interviews are from way back in 2003, but I found them interesting:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/...

ETA a current Washington Post take on the 1994 agreement:

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

the actions of so-called "rogue nations" like the "axis of evil" nations are not crazy or unhinged.  The constant use of North Korea and Iran as rhetorical punching bags by our leaders leads them to the logical conclusion that they may be in danger of invasion from the U.S.  So what is their reaction? To develop a deterrent to a U.S. invasion.  And then to show it off in public missile tests.

What's the solution?  The best solution is diplomatic engagement, a reduction in bellicose rhetoric and an assurance that absent overt aggression toward an ally from one of those countries, the U.S. is not invading them.

As a nation, we don't do much diplomacy any more.  It might be a good idea to try it again.  Certainly threats and isolation aren't working.

Ml1, I disagree with you in part.  North Korea is at the extreme end of rogue.  The solution has to involve China.  I'd like to see China take on this madman with our support and let the Korean peninsula unify and become a neutral country.  All of this would require quiet professional diplomatic work with China, which we can't do.

"Madman"

They told us that Khaddafi was  a mad man. At one point they said Fidel Castro was crazy.

And Saddam Hussein was "worse than Hitler".

Pay no attention to what he says.

http://www.politico.com/story/...

President Donald Trump’s promise that North Korea would face “fire and fury” if it keeps threatening the United States may be causing alarm around the world, but his aides are warning against reading too much into the combative talk.

One White House official described Trump's comments on Tuesday as "impromptu," said other senior officials weren't briefed on the language in advance, and described the president as simply being irritated by Pyongyang’s nuclear tests and belligerent talk.

LOST said:

"Madman"

They told us that Khaddafi was  a mad man. At one point they said Fidel Castro was crazy.

And Saddam Hussein was "worse than Hitler".

and every time we "take out" a madman, it unleashes hell on earth in those countries.  "Taking out" a dictator, doesn't mean there are democratic institutions ready to take over and bring freedom to these countries.  The result is usually a bloodbath as other would-be strongmen vie for power.

According to foreign policy analyst Gordon G. Chang, who specializes in East Asian economic and security issues, published a book whose title now seems prescient: 


"Despite appearances, Chang said, the Kim regime is neither suicidal nor profoundly irrational, and understands full well that a nuclear attack against the United States would result in its certain destruction. What North Korea primarily wants, Chang believes, is something the Western world is reluctant to provide: international legitimacy, direct diplomatic relations and the proverbial 'seat at the table.'”
http://www.salon.com/2017/08/0...