Donald trump. what is your take on him?

[mattiasNYC]

Thanks for improving the dialog.

 

[JohnRoberts]

OK I would like to correct my comment that Iran literally stated "they want to make tel aviv glow in the dark.." Those are my words and a somewhat hyperbolic caricature of my impression of their feelings toward Israel (and the US),

The state news agency, Fars, said the display included the Zolfaqar, the latest generation of Iran's long-range ballistic missiles which is capable of carrying "multiple re-entry vehicles" (MRVs), a payload which can hit several targets independently.

A report on Fars said one of the missiles on display had a message written on it in Hebrew which declared "Israel should be wiped off the Earth".

Another banner read: "If the leaders of the Zionist regime make a mistake then the Islamic Republic will turn Tel Aviv and Haifa to dust."

I do not know how credible this website is or the translation, but it sounds consistent.
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/tehran-taunts-israel-and-us-missile-parade-712891397
========

I have followed the rantings of former Iranian president Ahmadinejad that include holocaust denial, claims the US attacked ourselves on 9/11, there are no gay people in Iran, yadda yadda...

He reportedly subscribes to the Shia theology about a 12th imam which is occluded in the bottom of a well and will emerge hand in hand with jesus after a massive end of days war/conflagration.  Some suspect this religious belief mitigates against rational MAD concerns that would prohibit using nuclear weapons against Israel, since after this end times apocalypse the world will emerge under islamic rule.  (no I do not have a quote of him saying this) but his public statements are interesting enough.

The current President of Iran is much less inflammatory and has won $2B of concessions due to relaxed sanctions since their "nuclear deal".

I watched years of excerpts from middle east news. The program is off the air now due to lack of funding, but the people behind it were pro Israeli and pro Palestinian. Apparently the shows producer grew up in the region and remembered Jews and Arabs living together pretty much peacefully decades ago.

This veer has consumed a lot of energy and perhaps I can release you from the original nit...(my specific words about "glowing in the dark".)  I suspect I heard that phrase in some commentary. It may be true, but is not an official Iranian policy statement. I still believe Iran's religious leadership  would love to end Israel and the US, and I have no reason to believe that the Iranian people support their government's international policy.

JR

 

[DaveP]

So you complain that I'm not really debating despite providing direct quotes and arguments, simply because I in your opinion apparently insult people - yet you end your post - which is devoid of any actual debate or discussion of what I addressed that was on topic - by insulting me by calling me immature...

You brought that on yourself.
As if 2016 wasn't a bad enough year, you started 2017 for us by calling a Moderator of Group DIY ignorant.  Any fool knows that you don't get to his position by being ignorant and don't you think we would have sussed him out long before you came on the scene?

I don't always agree with JR but I would never call him ignorant.  I rarely agree with you, but I would not call you ignorant either.
You have a unique talent for debating, but you don't use it in an effective way that sways other peoples opinions.  In that respect your talent is wasted and that is why I said you were immature.  You can blame your failure on others, but the New Year is traditionally a time for self-reflection and resolutions, you would regain some respect in my eyes by apologizing to JR.

DaveP

 

[dmp]

Hey guys,
Let's stop the personal attacks.  It's hard to discuss issues with people who you disagree with but keep up the effort.
Or take a break from this thread until you cool off.
Also, I'll make a plea for approaching these issues with a neutral point of view. Try to see both sides and learn from the diverse opinions here. You won't get much out of spending time here if you are not approaching it with an open mind.

And... why the criticism of Obama for the UN vote when the resolution passed with a 14-0 vote (with the USA abstaining).  The other permanent members voted in favor (China, France, Russia, UK) when they could have veto'd it as well, while all the rest of the non-permanent members voted in favor.
Particularly, how does the UK prime minister come out and criticize Obama for not stopping it when the UK voted in favor? That is ridiculous.

 

[DaveP]

Particularly, how does the UK prime minister come out and criticize Obama for not stopping it when the UK voted in favor? That is ridiculous.

My understanding of the criticism was not so much the obvious point that you just made, but I heard her criticize Kerry for going further and saying that Israel had the most right wing government for years.  She said it was not our job to criticize democratically elected governments, which I agree with.

I hope that makes more sense and I agree with the rest of your post.

DaveP

 

[mattiasNYC]

I have followed the rantings of former Iranian president Ahmadinejad that include holocaust denial, claims the US attacked ourselves on 9/11, there are no gay people in Iran, yadda yadda...

And fortunately for us all, especially Iranians, he's gone. But the truth is that Iran never was an existential threat to Israel, and that Ahmadinejad never had the power to launch any attacks on it. Clearly, as with much of the other nonsense he spouted, his rhetoric was aimed at a domestic audience. Was it idiotic? Yes. Was it immoral? Yes. Was it the revelation of official policy and true intent? Hardly.

If the situation in that region is to improve we'll need to look at things clearly and fairly apply equal standards. Iran isn't even close to being the #1 problem in that region, yet we continue to complain about it. And as I mentioned before, this curiously goes back to when Iran threw out the Brits and took back its oil on its soil. That's when Iran really became a "problem" state. It's more than a little coincidental.

He reportedly subscribes to the Shia theology about a 12th imam which is occluded in the bottom of a well and will emerge hand in hand with jesus after a massive end of days war/conflagration.  Some suspect this religious belief mitigates against rational MAD concerns that would prohibit using nuclear weapons against Israel, since after this end times apocalypse the world will emerge under islamic rule.  (no I do not have a quote of him saying this) but his public statements are interesting enough.

So just bear with me for one second, because I actually think this is an important point here:

I saw a debate between Sam Harris, the atheist scientist, and someone of the Muslim faith (I'm blanking on the name right now...), and I think this very point was made and Harris completely missed it. The point was that we can't extract statements from another language and culture without putting it in its proper context. So, if a Muslim goes and commits a crime while yelling "god is  great" we in the US will immediately leap to the conclusion that the person committed the crime because of his religious beliefs. However, if an American commits a crime and says something with "God" in it at the same time we don't typically ascribe the same type of religious lunacy to him. And we don't do that because we know that in this culture using this language we use "God" 'all the time' without being literal about it. Heck, even if you watch porn you'll hear "Oh My God" being said (I've been told) and it's not literally affirming belief in god.

So, while Ahmadinejad was a terrible leader and said a bunch of things that at face value and taken literally were just nonsense, we have to be a bit careful when we assume fundamental beliefs. If we were to compare what George W Bush confessed to believing with the faith he belonged to we'll end up with equally hair-raising propositions, I'm sure. But we're wise enough to separate the two in this case, because we understand the English language and our culture. But we don't apply the same to others, we instead choose to take it at face value.

In other words: If Bush confessed to believing in god and that the bible was true and that he belonged to a particular denomination, would it be fair to take the belief and statements of the bible and that denomination at face value without interpretation, or do we moderate our views about just far Bush' beliefs actually went? And if we do the latter, are we doing the same with other foreign leaders?

We have to separate what foreign leaders do for the benefit of their own domestic political careers from what is a true foreign policy.

This veer has consumed a lot of energy and perhaps I can release you from the original nit...(my specific words about "glowing in the dark".)  I suspect I heard that phrase in some commentary. It may be true, but is not an official Iranian policy statement. I still believe Iran's religious leadership  would love to end Israel and the US, and I have no reason to believe that the Iranian people support their government's international policy.

JR

The Iranian political system is fairly complex and moves very slowly. Within it, I'm sure there are plenty that agree with many religious leaders that an end to Israel and the US would be great. However, we're just back to being pragmatic and fair about this and we can then ask the same of Israel and the US: Weren't there both political and religious leaders in the latter two countries that wished for the end of the Iranian regime?

So we're back to looking at what actually has happened, and we're back to having to acknowledge that it was the US that attacked Iran and supported Iran's attacker, not vice versa. The threat being posed here is not Iran against the other two, it's the exact opposite.

 

[mattiasNYC]

And... why the criticism of Obama for the UN vote when the resolution passed with a 14-0 vote (with the USA abstaining).  The other permanent members voted in favor (China, France, Russia, UK) when they could have veto'd it as well, while all the rest of the non-permanent members voted in favor.
Particularly, how does the UK prime minister come out and criticize Obama for not stopping it when the UK voted in favor? That is ridiculous.

I absolutely agree, it is ridiculous.

I think the issue here is political influence. The more influence a nation or group has the more we see what "we" acknowledge as being a disconnect between equal standards and just hypocrisy. So the real "danger" to some in power is allowing the Palestinians to get a foot in the door of the UN, getting to level their rights with Israel. That's really the danger. This behavior goes back very far and it's entirely natural: If you're 'competing' with someone you don't really want a level playing field, you want one that benefits you. The rhetoric coming out of leaders reflect that I think.

 

[JohnRoberts]

The Iranian political system is fairly complex and moves very slowly. Within it, I'm sure there are plenty that agree with many religious leaders that an end to Israel and the US would be great. However, we're just back to being pragmatic and fair about this and we can then ask the same of Israel and the US: Weren't there both political and religious leaders in the latter two countries that wished for the end of the Iranian regime?

So we're back to looking at what actually has happened, and we're back to having to acknowledge that it was the US that attacked Iran and supported Iran's attacker, not vice versa. The threat being posed here is not Iran against the other two, it's the exact opposite.

As I said before this is a 55 gallon drum of worms...

I do not see moral equivalency between Israel and their several neighbors who lob missiles at them and attack their civilians in acts of terrorism.

From state dept report a few years ago

In July 2012, the United States State Department released a report on terrorism around the world in 2011. The report states that "Iran remained an active state sponsor of terrorism in 2011 and increased its terrorist-related activity" and that "Iran also continued to provide financial, material, and logistical support for terrorist and militant groups throughout the Middle East and Central Asia." The report states that Iran has continued to provide "lethal support, including weapons, training, funding, and guidance, to Iraqi Shia militant groups targeting U.S. and Iraqi forces, as well as civilians," despite pledging to support the stabilization of Iraq, and that the Qods Force provided training to the Taliban in Afghanistan on "small unit tactics, small arms, explosives, and indirect fire weapons, such as mortars, artillery, and rockets." The report further states that Iran has provided weapons and training to the Assad regime in Syria which has launched a brutal crackdown on Syrian rebels, as well as providing weapons, training, and funding to Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, among others, and has assisted in rearming Hizballah. The report states as well that Iran has remained unwilling to bring to justice senior members of Al Qaeda that it continued to detain, and also refused to publicly identify these senior members, as well as that Iran has allowed Al Qaeda members to operate a core facilitation pipeline through Iranian territory, which has enabled Al Qaeda to carry funds and move facilitators and operatives to South Asia and elsewhere.[9][10][11]

 

You may rationalize this as defensive behavior but it seems overtly offensive to me.  I suspect most of the western world dislikes the Iranian theocracy, Israel views it as an existential threat. We are supposed to be their ally. In a strange "enemy of my enemy is my friend", Israel has had discussions with the Saudis also fearful about Iran getting nuclear weapons and upending stability in the region.

Iran has reason to be paranoid. Their war with Iraq was nasty with Saddam using poison gas and indiscriminate missile attacks killing somewhere between a half million and one million people. Israel has preemptively attacked secret nuclear weapons programs in a few different countries in the region. The US/Iran Nuclear deal is characterized as stopping their nuclear program short of a weapon, but merely postpones that. President Obama admitted in an interview in 2015 that Iran could develop a bomb after the deal expires (10-15 years), but he "hopes" Iran will have changed by then? :    So even President Obama hopes they will change but is trying honey instead of a big stick.

Do we feel lucky? Relaxing the sanction against Iran has already netted them some $2B in revenue. The sanctions were working to put pressure on the mullahs but I don't see much motivation to change now. One perhaps good thing is the nuclear deal pushes back the timetable for using a military strike to thwart the imminent nuclear weapon capability by over a decade into the future.  I expect Iran to use that decade and billions of dollars to harden and embed their program, making a future surgical strike much less possible.

I have watched the Palestinian issue play out over decades as the other arab nations in the region refused to accept Palestinian refugees to keep pressure on Israel. No sane person is opposed to the concept of the UN, but in practice they do not seem to be very effective. In an ideal world they might police the lawless regions in the world to prevent bad actors from having safe havens to operate from, but any major action by UN forces would actually be the military from one or more of the permanent security council members so why bother with the charade? 

JR

 

[tands]

I wouldn't call it honey, Obama was probably assuming Clinton would go to war on Iran (etc) during her first term. It's not like she's any big mystery. They've been trying to do this great chessboard bullsh*t for years, but Putin keeps beating them, Ukraine and Syria, but then there's Egypt too. These people are lousy, like Rumsfeld and Cheney were.

 

[tands]

"Black pols plan Trump resistance

After eight years of the nation’s first African-American president, black lawmakers were in for an adjustment no matter who won the White House.

But members of the Congressional Black Caucus say they’re bracing for the worst in Donald Trump, fearing a presidency that could set minorities back decades.

Leaders of the group told POLITICO they have already begun discussing strategies to deal with Trump and any policies they believe would disenfranchise African-Americans — from public school funding to low-income housing to voting restrictions. Though the president-elect’s supporters call the alarm unwarranted, black lawmakers say Trump’s campaign and his Cabinet picks more than justify their concern.

“The stakes are incredibly high and our community is counting on us as the last line of defense between Donald Trump and the worst of what America could offer,” Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said.

“This is not the normal incoming president,” added Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.). “We had no plan for George Bush. I think Charlie Rangel and John Conyers would tell you they didn’t even have a plan for Richard Nixon. But this is not the norm.”

Incoming CBC Chairman Cedric Richmond (D-La.) is expected to outline his priorities for the new administration when he officially takes the reins of the caucus on Tuesday. Some members suggested challenging Trump on his home turf — Twitter — while others advocated nonviolent protests reminiscent of the civil rights movement. "


http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/african-american-lawmakers-trump-resistance-233040

"John Lewis: I 'Never Saw' Bernie Sanders During Civil Rights Era

Rep. John Lewis questioned Sen. Bernie Sanders' commitment to promote racial equality during the civil rights era, saying he "never saw him" during the most tumultuous years of the movement.

"I never saw him. I never met him," the Georgia congressman said. "I was chair of the student non-violent coordinating committee for 3 years, from 1963 to 1966. I was involved in the sit-ins, the freedom ride, the march on Washington, the march from Selma to Montgomery and directed the board of education project for six years."

Lewis added, "But I met Hillary Clinton. I met President Clinton."


http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/john-lewis-never-saw-bernie-sanders-during-civil-rights-era-n516976

Jonathan Capehart on Andrea Mitchell - Bernie Sanders photo TRUTHER

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ak3RDTOUJHY


Journalist Jonathan Capehart breaks down over Trump's America

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgfbRHhFtMQ

Skip to 5:00 for the goods.



" Capehart appeared on MSNBC that night with Chris Matthews, doubling down on his claims and assuming a semi-outraged, semi-sneering tone that he hadn’t used in the article:

“This picture right here that they’re sending around, trying to say that he’s been in the trenches, fighting for us, fighting for civil rights?” Capehart said. “That’s not Bernie Sanders. That’s Bruce Rappaport, a fellow student activist at the University of Chicago.”

The photo, it turns out, was shot by a famous Civil Rights movement photographer named Danny Lyon. Lyon saw the original Time story, and in late January published a blog post affirming the fact that the activist in question was Bernie Sanders. He told the same thing to Phaidon in early February. Capehart either ignored these posts, or never bothered to perform a simple Google search to look for them—that would be too much like honest journalism.

After he published his article, there was an immediate backlash from Sanders supporters, and Capehart seemed to understand that he might have made a mistake. Which set him in motion, leading to tweets like this one on Saturday:

    Spent the day doing my job. Reporting. Getting the facts. Thinking before writing. New Bernie photo piece coming soon. Not so cut and dry.
    — Jonathan Capehart (@CapehartJ) February 13, 2016

The first time I saw this tweet, I laughed out loud. Capehart's tone is rich—after being attacked by Sanders supporters on Twitter, he wants to take the high ground and get a pat on the back for “doing his job” and “reporting” and “getting the facts” and “thinking before writing” when those are the exact things he didn't do for his original story! What amazed me about this tweet was that he appeared not to sense any irony in his indignant position."

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/02/the-jonathan-capehart-saga-or-why-progressives-hav.html


John Lewis knows which side of his biscuit is buttered

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfT8-WSDHJA

 

[mattiasNYC]

I do not see moral equivalency between Israel and their several neighbors who lob missiles at them and attack their civilians in acts of terrorism.

Well, let's think about the above for a second, because it's an argument that not only pops up frequently, but actually also brings us back full circle;

What you're implying above is that there is a way to compare the morality of the two sides, and that we really should hold them to the same standard. After all, if we don't then we don't have the problem of whether the morality is "equivalent" or not. So, having said that we can probably make a few statements that we both agree are true:

- Terrorism is bad
- Targeting civilians is bad
- Killing civilians is bad
- War is bad

and so forth. We both agree. But since we're talking about "equivalence" clearly everything isn't equal. So, for example, as absolutely horrific 9/11 was for us here in New York, I'd take a large amount of them before I'd prefer an all-out war on this territory. Why? Because there was 9/11, and then that was over on 9/12 (with aftermath obviously). With air traffic grounded that was no longer a concern. And then security increased etc. We still have terrorist activities in the US, but again they're all one-offs. Actual military conflict - war - on the other hand is something one surely doesn't want on one's soil. It's horrible. Soldiers firing off their guns, bombs being dropped, missiles etc.... day after day after day... week after week.... casualties orders of magnitude more numerous.... Pretend we're Bagdad during the Iraq war - clearly worse than the odd act of terrorism, awful as it may be.

So, terrorism is awful for civilians, but war is worse. Do we agree so far?

So then, since we're comparing the two sides the question that has to be asked here is this one:

What means of defense are the Palestinian people morally justified in using against Israel's colonialist settlement activities?

It's not a rhetorical question. If you want to argue that we can compare the morality of both sides then since the UN vote was brought up it seems even more obvious to take the settlements into account. I gave an example earlier; what if Canada or Mexico started annexing US territory and placed Mexican/Canadian-only settlements on US soil? It's a completely serious question. What means would the American people be morally justified in using to stop that activity? Does anyone here think the response would be anything less than extreme violence?

So what do we allow the Palestinians to do then? They can't use terrorism as their means, because terrorism is bad, and they presumably can't use war as their means, because that's worse (this follows logically), so what are they 'allowed' to do then? Complain to the UN? Like they just did and we're now up in arms over because it prevents the peace process which in part was supposed to limit the settlement activity they're complaining about?

Let's face it: We look at people all over this planet and we say that they have the right to self determination, the right to their own territory, and the right to defend it. We don't have to look further than the US or Israel - we give both peoples the right to defend that territory, and that right doesn't really appear to have limits. But somehow the only final action by the Palestinian people that we find acceptable is sitting down and being quiet. Not even non-violent means such as going to the UN are accepted.

To argue "equivalency" when we're this unevenly-handed is just not rational.

Finally, on the topic of equivalency, you can find numbers from organizations such as B'Tselem in Israel and the numbers are pretty horrific:

(19 January 2009 - 30 November 2016 - in Gaza/WstBank/Total/Israel)

Palestinian minors killed by Israeli security forces : 620 / 76 / 696 / 1
Palestinian women killed by Israeli security forces : 315 / 16 / 331 / 0
Israeli minors killed by Palestinians : 0 / 9 / 9 / 3
Israeli women killed by Palestinians: 0 / 10 / 10 / 3

So, yeah, hardly 'equivalent'.... The process of settlement establishment, maintenance and expansion requires military occupation, and military occupation in turn leads to violence.

the Iranian theocracy, Israel views it as an existential threat.

"Israel views it as an existential threat" is imply not true. It would be true to say that some Israeli politicians will say that's the case, but if you look at the people actually working with the national security of the nation they have a different view;

Efraim Halevy, formerly of Mossad,
Gadi Eizenkot, Israeli Chief of the General Staff, Lieutenant General
Amos Yadlin, former head of Israeli Military Intelligence

to name but three, all agree that Iran is not an existential threat to Israel. Why the discrepancy? Because the latter are experts on the matter and are concerned with the actual security of the nation. A-holes like Bibi have different priorities, and crying about anything that doesn't get him what he wants is s.o.p., truth be damned.

I have watched the Palestinian issue play out over decades as the other arab nations in the region refused to accept Palestinian refugees to keep pressure on Israel.

Registered with the UNRWA (2010):

Jordan: Around 1.9 million
Lebanon: Around 425,000
Syria:    Around 427,000

Then there was Egypt, Iraq etc. I have no idea where you get your information from, it's just dead wrong.

No sane person is opposed to the concept of the UN, but in practice they do not seem to be very effective. In an ideal world they might police the lawless regions in the world to prevent bad actors from having safe havens to operate from, but any major action by UN forces would actually be the military from one or more of the permanent security council members so why bother with the charade? 

JR

Would you want the UN to be effective in practice?

My guess is "no", because most conservative critics of the UN actually don't want it to work, because it interferes with sovereignty. So really the argument - assuming the answer here is indeed 'no' - is fairly "questionable".

 

[JohnRoberts]

can we agree that the year is 2017?

"Israel views it as an existential threat" is imply not true. It would be true to say that some Israeli politicians will say that's the case, but if you look at the people actually working with the national security of the nation they have a different view;

Efraim Halevy, formerly of Mossad,
Gadi Eizenkot, Israeli Chief of the General Staff, Lieutenant General
Amos Yadlin, former head of Israeli Military Intelligence

to name but three, all agree that Iran is not an existential threat to Israel. Why the discrepancy? Because the latter are experts on the matter and are concerned with the actual security of the nation. A-holes like Bibi have different priorities, and crying about anything that doesn't get him what he wants is s.o.p., truth be damned.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/most-israeli-jews-say-iran-deal-existential-threat-poll/

according to the times of israel... "Nearly three-quarters of Jewish-Israelis agree with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s assertion that the Iran nuclear deal poses an “existential threat” to the Jewish state."

JR

 

[mattiasNYC]

can we agree that the year is 2017?

?

according to the times of israel... "Nearly three-quarters of Jewish-Israelis agree with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s assertion that the Iran nuclear deal poses an “existential threat” to the Jewish state."

JR

Ok, so are you saying that if a majority of people hold a particular view that view is objectively true?

 

[tands]

HA HA HA HA

"In an annual New Year's Day speech, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un warned that preparations for launching an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) were at the final stage. He added that he would continue enhancing his nation's capability for "pre-emptive strikes" unless the U.S. ended annual naval exercises with South Korea, or what Pyongyang calls "war games."

Widely perceived as a renewed threat on Washington, Kim's remarks prompted an angry tweet from Trump.

    "North Korea just stated that it is in the final stages of developing a nuclear weapon capable of reaching parts of the U.S. It won't happen!"

In a second tweet, Trump then criticized China, a traditional ally of Pyongyang, for its lack of assistance on the matter.

    "China has been taking out massive amounts of money & wealth from the U.S. in totally one-sided trade, but won't help with North Korea. Nice!"

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/02/trump-hits-back-at-north-korea-china-in-tweets.html

 

[JohnRoberts]

?

Ok, so are you saying that if a majority of people hold a particular view that view is objectively true?

I don't believe a majority in the US even know what the word "existential" means, but the poll there probably wasn't in english...

If you want to argue about "truth" maybe look for a different fool to wrestle with.

JR

PS: This is why I prefer electronics... less squishy.

 

[DaveP]

In a second tweet, Trump then criticized China, a traditional ally of Pyongyang, for its lack of assistance on the matter.

I would guess that it is not in China's interest to help "solve" the North Korean problem.  As long as the problem exists it has leverage and China is useful to the US.

DaveP

 

[tands]

Yes, just so. I find it hilarious that Trump just straight called them out on it, by tweet. What can they say?

;D

Kick ass builds, btw, man!

 

[micaddict]

Although I'm still not sure if it's  wise to have politcal threads here, this one has become a true classic IMO.
Every American should read it. And every other "western society/civilization member" too, for that matter.
I hope all contributors to this thread have the class and/or guts to leave their replies untouched.

Please carry on.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I would guess that it is not in China's interest to help "solve" the North Korean problem.  As long as the problem exists it has leverage and China is useful to the US.

DaveP

Yes this is a fairly old relationship... China would be over run with N Koreans looking for food and jobs if the N Korean regime was liberalized.

China considers the Korean peninsula their back yard... and N Korea's saber rattling (ICBM test) is nothing really new. Only thing interesting this time is the timing, perhaps probing for some weakness during transition between administrations.

I believe in one president at a time so Trump could exercise a little more patience, but that is not in his nature.

JR

 

[mattiasNYC]

I don't believe a majority in the US even know what the word "existential" means, but the poll there probably wasn't in english...

The fact remains that you are more impressed by the population's (supposed) reply to a poll than the senior officials of the nation's intelligence and defense agencies. If history taught us anything it's that politicians lie and distort information and that people are unfortunately fairly gullible and like to have their opinions confirmed, and thus it's of great value to listen to the professionals in the field - especially if what they say gives them zero additional benefits.