Trump to act “very strongly”

Tough Donald trump talk on the North Korea threat.

Reuters: Trump pledges to act ‘very strongly’ on North Korea missile threat

U.S. President Donald Trump vowed on Thursday to confront North Korea “very strongly” following its latest missile test and urged nations to show Pyongyang there would be consequences for its weapons program.

Speaking at a news conference with Polish President Andrzej Duda, Trump said North Korea was “a threat, and we will confront it very strongly”.

He said the United States was considering “severe things” for North Korea, but that he would not draw a “red line” of the kind that his predecessor, Barack Obama, had drawn but not enforced on the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

Trump added: “… they are behaving in a very, very dangerous manner and something will have to be done.”

Are Donald Trump’s words a sign of very strong action against North Korea, or is it just very strong rhetoric?

I’m sure South Korea, Japan and China in particular would like to know given that they are closer to the firing line.

Tensions and threats have increased substantially since Trump took over the presidency. Who is being the most provocative? Who is most likely to push the hostile missile button first?

Leave a comment

49 Comments

  1. Reply
  2. Corky

     /  July 7, 2017

    We should press the button first. Limited air strikes on military targets. Let NK make the next move, or not. Otherwise we will live under constant international tension that Kim Jong Un loves provoking. China should take a breath and see the advantages of a democratic North Korea. More trade, and the Yanks gone. And who knows..a unified Korea may not be a Western ally.

    One things for sure, after waterboarding Kimmy, his hairdresser should be next.

    Reply
    • lurcher1948

       /  July 7, 2017

      Hows all that winning going trump,are you bored with winning yet HAHAHA
      PS trump scares me more than the one with the bad haircut..WAIT they both have bad haircuts:)

      Reply
      • Corky

         /  July 7, 2017

        ”Hows all that winning going trump,are you bored with winning yet HAHAHA.”

        Groan, thank god it’s Friday.

        Reply
  3. sorethumb

     /  July 7, 2017

    The problem is the artillery barrage aimed at South Korea. It is really their call what to do? It is an interesting situation.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  July 7, 2017

      That’s a very good point. No it’s not the US’s call, but that’s never stopped them deciding it is, & then starting a war that ends up devastating someone else’s country & people, but not theirs. Which is kind of why 9/11 happened, really. If only they would sit down & think about it.

      Reply
      • High Flying Duck

         /  July 7, 2017

        North Korea showed off a missile that can reach the USA and said it was a “present” for them. They also said they would deliver lots more “presents”.
        Somehow this is not for the USA to react to and they should butt out?
        I think you need to think about what is and is not the USA’s problem before making comments like that Gezz.

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  July 7, 2017

          I did. Why would North Korea think it needed an ICBM? Do you think?

          Reply
          • High Flying Duck

             /  July 7, 2017

            Delusions of Grandeur? A continuation of the cult of personality and propagation of its “dear Leader” being all powerful?
            Using military might as a proxy for a functioning nation circa Russia in the 60’s?

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  July 7, 2017

              Possibly. I can’t think of a time when they haven’t been threatened by the US. It’s for their people to take him down. Not the US.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  July 7, 2017

              Ever since the USA cruelly forced them to invade South Korea they have been treated very unfairly.
              It’s not like they are an insular nation – they constantly threaten other countries and treat their own people appallingly (or in Gareth Morgans words the people are “poor, yes, but wonderfully engaged, well-dressed, fully employed and well informed”.)
              I’ll let you decide if Gareth and Dennis Rodman are right or not.
              I’m not sure about how easy it is for “their people” to topple a totalitarian regime?
              When the world witnesses genocide and destruction, and when an unstable nation builds a more and more powerful military arsenal while flinging threats out left right and centre my personal view is that action is needed.
              “peace in our time” tends not to work out that way from my reading of history.

            • Gezza

               /  July 7, 2017

              “when an unstable nation builds a more and more powerful military arsenal while flinging threats out left right and centre my personal view is that action is needed.”

              I agree. They need to be very carefully watched. Pulled back from the brink. Otherwise, they could end up destabilising an entire region of the world with Lord know what consequences for other countries who had no business getting involved.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  July 7, 2017

              What happens when the country being “very carefully watched” increases it’s military capability at the same time as upping its rhetoric?
              Over time you watch as a small problem gets bigger and bigger until you reach a stage where the small problem could send nukes into your country and openly threatens to do so.
              At which point does “watching” become an untenable option? What exactly does “watching” achieve?
              As per my post below replying to Sorethumb I personally think China is going to bear the brunt of US, Japanese, South Korean and Australian pressure to get this situation de-escalated.
              It could be argued that China use NK as a tool for their own ends – they fund the military program and the NK economy is almost 100% reliant on China trade. As such, if NK do something it is almost certainly with the approval of China.
              Trump’s ability in a crisis is going to be truly tested here.
              But the US is doing what it must to protect itself rather than getting involved in someone else’s business as you have suggested.

            • Gezza

               /  July 7, 2017

              I was describing the US, with your words.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  July 7, 2017

              If so your description was very wrong.
              The Martyn Bradbury’s of the world consider the US the great Satan. Most people can see past that sort of ignorant thinking though.

            • Gezza

               /  July 7, 2017

              Oh no, I don’t think they’re the Great Satan. I do think they are an Empire though, & they act like one, & it causes many problems they then propose themselves as the only solution to, quite often.

              Tell me, do you thonk the US should have invaded Afghanistan? And do you think they should have invaded Iraq? This is going somewhere relevant – so please forgive what might seem like a diversion.

            • Gezza

               /  July 7, 2017

              Fk. Small screen & onscreen keyboard. FiP!
              * thonk = think.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  July 7, 2017

              I actually started my last post differently and said the US tends to go in with good intentions in the main (but certainly not always).
              Sadam was a despot who caused huge problems, cost millions and murdered plenty. I have no issue whatsoever with his overthrow and think the issue wasn’t so much the US going in as the horribly inept planning around the aftermath.
              Having a ‘Plan B’ is generally good practice when taking on a war.
              The whole WMD issue was a sideshow and I think was unnecessary as a justification.
              That said, I think it would have been better if GB senior had followed through rather than leaving it to Junior.
              Syria as it is now is a great alternative example of what NOT going in can achieve. So pick your poison.
              Afghanistan was more of an issue as they were damned if they did, damned if they didn’t. It was a hotbed of Islamic terrorism and exported terror.
              Has the invasion made it worse? Maybe or maybe not – it wasn’t exactly great before they went in.
              But once more, it was an invasion without a plan and they now find themselves in a difficult, almost intractable position.
              I guess you’d need to work out if they have killed more terrorists than they have created.
              On balance my opinion is Afghanistan was a bad idea as it didn’t seem to have clear purpose or any semblance of an end game or exit strategy.

            • Gezza

               /  July 7, 2017

              Ok, so hedging your bets a bit there. Afghanistan, no, the terrorism hotbed training camps were shut down – stopped by the taliban after the US cruise missile strikes. They wanted to hand him over to a third country for trial. The US didn’t want that. So, fucked the place over, for nothing, & failed to get him, and made things worse there & in Pakistan, & in other places in the general region.

              Iraq. Same thing. Fucked the place up. Fucked up Syria, Fucked up Libya. Crazy.

              What the hell were they thinking? There was a fucking plan. The plans were fucking useless. What idiots! It was obvious what was going to happen.

              How unstable a country is a fucking country that does that? One where they stick in different Presidents every few years that then decide to invade other countries or destabilize others & screw everything up for all sorts of people in that country and regions for generations, dpending on which bunch of half-witted, compromised advisers they choose to listen to?

              Righto. What’s the plan for Korea, please?

            • High Flying Duck

               /  July 7, 2017

              Unfortunately you could write a longer list of places that have been fucked up by the international community (or the US if you want to keep it drilled in on them) sitting on its hands and doing nothing.
              Bosnia and Kosovo were relative successes due to military intervention. So were Sierra Leone and East Timor.
              Blaming the US for Syria is a push too far for mine – they are run by a criminal and the fighting is funded from any number of sources of which the US is but a part.
              There is opportunity cost to every action or inaction and there are also unintended consequences.
              Unfortunately in each situation you cannot judge what happened against what would have happened had a different course been taken. There is generally a trigger for intervention, a line crossed, threats made or actions taken.

              I see your point, but also think you put too little emphasis on the reason for the intervention in your thinking.

              This quote has a lot of merit though:

              “I think the lesson in recent history is that regardless of how benevolent U.S. intentions can be, when we go to the Muslim world and occupy it, ultimately our presence there soon becomes unwelcome,” he explains. The U.S. might be able to achieve its primary aims during intervention, but the damage to perceptions can negate that.
              “Part of the problem is that there’s a huge discrepancy between the reason why we are there and the reason why we are perceived to be there,” Abrahms says. “I think that regardless again of our perception, what really matters is how we are perceived.” – Max Abrahms, a professor at Northeastern University specialising in Terrorism

            • Gezza

               /  July 7, 2017


              Doesn’t answer the question what’s the plan for Korea, among other things? You are supporting Trump doing something. What?

              Quote irrelevant. Doesn’t explain attacks on Vietnam & Laos & failures there. Must be an American.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  July 7, 2017

              I’m not an American. Never have been. I just have sympathy for the choices they have to make and the repercussions of getting it wrong – either through taking action, or through inaction.
              Great power/ great responsibility and all that. If you have the power to help, do you not also have an obligation?
              Life & international relations are not as simple as that, but I’m sure you haven’t missed the international communities despair at the thought of America becoming more internally focused under Trump?
              It is ironic that the biggest complaint about the UN is their complete lack of action on any meaningful issue. Thousands die while they do nothing on a number of pressing issues.
              As for NK, the plan I assume, is as I put below – pressure the hell out of China to stop propping up the NK economy and starve them of the funds and resources they need until they cede.
              Military action would be a last resort and if taken would involve targeting the installations where the missile technology is stored. Otherwise covert action so that there is no chance of a counter.
              I would put the chance of an Iraq / Afghanistan style intervention at around about nil.

            • Gezza

               /  July 7, 2017

              Righto. I’ll leave it there. It’s all guesswork isn’t it? Who knows? To be fair to you, it’s not like they ever get their predictions about what other countries will do, whose side they’ll take, what will happen next, who they arm, who they should threaten, who they should sanction, and all the other very careful calculations around how protecting the world is the same thing as everything they do militarily, diplomatically, & covertly, around the world to protect America’s interests – wrong, is it?

            • High Flying Duck

               /  July 7, 2017

              Always a pleasure G.
              I do have sympathy for your view and when thee US get it wronh they do a great job of just how wrong.
              But as you imply in your last post there are myriad connections, ties, relationships and actions spider webbed across the globe and every action can affect a whole range of third parties.
              I used to love watching The West Wing for it’s portrayal of the complexities of international politics.

            • Gezza

               /  July 7, 2017


  4. After the ‘artillery’ barrage threat what ?
    15 ICBM nukes behind the border would take out the threat .
    Give the little fat kook a look at how ICBM’s actually work
    Or a couple of hundred cruise missiles directed from satellite observations

    Reply
    • Trumpenreich

       /  July 7, 2017

      “15 ICBM nukes behind the border would take out the threat .”

      And where would the radioactive fallout end up? Catch a ride on the jet stream back to USA…?

      Reply
    • lurcher1948

       /  July 7, 2017

      So george after the USA nukes 50000000 normal people and the world spits on every american for ever, the the USA are then the scum of the earth FOR EVER how does that solve anything.The north koreans want to nuke the USA whats the problem,more power to them, they are not threatning my country New Zealand

      Reply
  5. Trumpenreich

     /  July 7, 2017

    Everyone was too frightened to sort out North Korea, so now the Trumpenführer has to.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  July 7, 2017

      No I don’t think they were scared to. I think they were unable to foresee what the result might be. So now they’ve got an egotistical impulsive Prez who hasn’t got a fucking clue either, but who might get it into his head to do it anyway & see what happens.

      Reply
      • Trumpenreich

         /  July 7, 2017

        “egotistical impulsive”

        Another #Fake News narrative. It wasn’t Trump who burned down the M.E – try Obama, Hillary and other neo cons/globalists instead. If he stays true to his Nationalist platform he swept into power on he won’t get involved in M.E. politics on behalf of the Globalists and Israel.

        Unfortunately he has done a u-turn on Syria, which has PO his support base.

        However, as North Korea has been allowed by previous administrations to steadily get closer to a nuke and delivery system combo capable of hitting USA, he will have support from his base to do something.

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  July 7, 2017

          Unfortunately he has done a u-turn on Syria, which has PO his support base.
          Glint.

          Reply
  6. High Flying Duck

     /  July 7, 2017

    If acting “Very Strongly” doesn’t work, he can escalate to acting “Very Bigly”.
    Then the the North Koreans will have to sit up and take notice.

    Reply
  7. Brown

     /  July 7, 2017

    If a missile gets close to or hits an ally of the US the US will react. China will know this and probably be grateful. The US doesn’t need to and won’t fire first. The only issue is how dumb is NK.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  July 7, 2017

      My take is, not dumb enough to commit suicide.

      Reply
      • Brown

         /  July 8, 2017

        I’m not sure about that. If they cock up a launch and things go bad by accident it would be, perhaps, assisted suicide so not quite the same thing. Sort of like poking a wasp nest with a stick rather than your finger. In any case, I suspect patience will have run out with fat boy about then and saying, “So solly” won’t be enough to prevent a limited and carefully targeted reaction.

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  July 8, 2017

          We’ll just have to wait & see. It’s not so much an attack that’s the unsettling prospect, it’s the unpredictability of the aftermath. The US is hopeless at predicting aftermaths.

          Reply
  8. sorethumb

     /  July 7, 2017

    The key to all this is China – Chinese factories provided the high-tech components?

    Reply
    • sorethumb

       /  July 7, 2017

      And now (of course) we celebrate diversity. In a conflict what side would the Chinese community support? We’d better arm the Waiheke Ferry and Tug Lyttelton.

      Reply
    • High Flying Duck

       /  July 7, 2017

      I agree – i think China is the key as without the Chionese NK would not be able to do anything.
      Australia and USA – both now in the firing line – have not ruled out China sanctions to push the issue if required. Should be an interesting game of brinkmanship from here.

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  July 7, 2017

        Chinese people have been here for many generations, and it’s as unlikely that they all think as one as that any other race does.

        Reply
        • High Flying Duck

           /  July 7, 2017

          It’s not about thinking as one, it is stopping China as a country propping up the militarisation of NK until it can get its house in order.
          The Australian acting Prime Minister has said sanctions are a real possibility, which given the level of trade between the two countries, was a bold statement and showed the importance of finding a resolution:
          ____

          ‘In the wake of an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council overnight, where the United States also warned a military response was possible, Mr Joyce said the “key person” who could affect the intensifying situation was China.

          “China has more cards on the table on this than most and should be dealing with this promptly,” Mr Joyce told ABC’s Radio National.’

          ‘For much of the year the United States and its allies, including Australia, have insisted that China, as North Korea’s largest trading partner, holds the key to bringing its rogue neighbour to heel.

          US President Donald Trump tweeted overnight on Thursday: “Trade between China and North Korea grew almost 40 per cent in the first quarter. So much for China working with us – but we had to give it a try!”

          When asked about the US warning it could cut off trade with countries doing business with North Korea, Mr Joyce replied: “we obviously have sympathy”.

          “If people want to aid and abet [North Korea], obviously, we can’t be supporting them.”

          ‘However, he later appeared to dampen his comments. When asked on Sky News whether he was “seriously talking” about trade sanctions, Mr Joyce replied: “No, what we are saying is that if there is an organisation that is trading with North Korea … we have to look through the lens of this: ‘do you take this threat seriously? Do you want to, are you going to do anything about it?'”

          Foreign Minister Julie Bishop was also forced to make clear that the government had “no plans” to impose sanctions on China.’

          Reply
  9. sorethumb

     /  July 7, 2017

    Imagine if The Donald really does put his real estate developer hat on and with all the brain power he can muster come up with a plan. He is used to big decisions and may have an advantage over an over analytical bureaucratic type?

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  July 7, 2017

      Worked well for Dick Cheney.

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  July 7, 2017

        He owned those businesses, he doesn’t own the US and he can’t sack anyone who opposes him.

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  July 7, 2017

          Who? Dick? That beggar should be doing time for war crime.

          Reply
  10. Alan Wilkinson

     /  July 7, 2017

    Gotta think outside the square. Offer to make Kim VP of the US of A.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s