On a war footing
I’m sure this will work out well.
North Korea’s foreign minister has accused US President Donald Trump of declaring war on his country.
Ri Yong-ho told reporters in New York that North Korea reserved the right to shoot down US bombers.
This applied even when they were not in North Korean airspace, the minister added.
This is not the first time that North Korea has used the phrase “a declaration of war” in relation to the United States.
But Mr Ri’s comments are a response to the US president’s tweet that Mr Ri and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un would not “be around much longer” if they continued their rhetoric.
Trump needs to be removed from office because he’s unfit.
Yes, please.
The sooner, the better. It’s astonishing that people are letting him get away with this behaviour. Where are the famous ‘checks and balances’?
This seems to work best when the Congress and/or the Courts are from different parties than the President. When they are all in the same party, especially when the party itself is corrupt, it seems like this can fall apart quickly.
Well, to look on the bright side, the rest of the universe should be fine…
Which means it doesn’t work at all. They’re not real checks or real balances if they’re available only if the political numbers are right.
This maniac is a global emergency yet no one can stop him. It’s grotesque.
Starting foreign wars is a right of passage for US presidents. In fact, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Obama had seven of them going – in Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, Syria and Iraq. Last year alone, the US dropped at least 26,171 bombs, blasting foreigners with 72 bombs a day; that’s three bombs every hour, 24 hours a day. USA! USA!
So, yes, Trump hasn’t managed to start a foreign war yet. But let’s give him some time before calling him unfit in that regard.
Sam @ 5, not to defend Obama overly and certainly splitting hairs, but Obama didn’t start any of those wars.Afghanistan and Iraq were started by a previous president (and arguably have their roots much further back). Pakistan isn’t a war or even theatre of conflict in it’s own right as the border is so porous and not under anyone’s control except the local war lords. It’s still the Afghan war. Syria Obama didn’t start and he only got involved when that conflict spilled back into Iraq. Libya was a nasty civil war that the US got involved in with some good intentions (and some bad), but to no good effect it has to be said. Yemen and Somalia are again pre-existing regional and civil wars that the US has had long involvement in via taking advantage of the chaos and weak to non-existent governments to settle extra-judicial scores.
This is a long winded way of saying that if we apply the criteria of ‘starting wars’ neither Obama or Trump have done so. If we apply the more accurate criteria of staying involved in already existing conflicts at some level, then they score the same.
I think the main difference is that Obama may have had at least an inkling of a long term strategy, whereas I’m pretty convinced that Trump doesn’t except to MAGA, which broadly translates to make Trump richer and look great.
And, I don’t recall Obama ever threatening to “rain fire and fury like the world has never seen” or calling any world leader “Rocket man”. He certainly never threatened to destroy an entire country because he had a beef with the leader.
And starting wars was never supposed to be a rite of passage for US presidents. The problem is our leaky Constitution – when a president seizes a new power for himself (one that belongs solely to Congress in the Constitution), and the Congress doesn’t push back, then checks and balances go by the wayside. The problem is that making the President Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces gives him power to send troops off without actually declaring war. That can only be stopped by Congress putting its collective foot down and saying no.
Rob @ 6, I didn’t claim Obama started all those wars, only that they were ongoing during his administration. Indeed the US claims it’s in many of the countries listed “at the request” of the local government – in the same way that the mob claims it’s providing protection to local citizens.
In any case. Obama certainly did start the war in Libya, indeed he admitted it was “the biggest mistake” of his presidency. Military action to overthrow Gaddafi was not authorized by the Security Council, making it just as illegal at international law as Bush Jr’s folly in Iraq. You may also recall Republicans making hay about Obama’s failure to seek timely congressional authorization for war, which made the Libyan conflict unlawful under American law.
Of course, Obama claimed the US was in Libya on a humanitarian mission with good intent (don’t they always?), but the facts belie that. As if to remove all doubt that the US was after regime change, shortly after Gaddafi was sodomized with a bayonet, Secretary of State Clinton was on national television crowing, “We came, we saw, he died!” Har! Har! It wasn’t so funny when Libya became a failed state and the departure point for Europe’s refugee crisis.
Sam,
This is ambiguous, but I’m happy to accept your proposed interpretation, although the way you go back to discussing starting a war in the context of Trump muddies that.
Obama, Trump and indeed every President in my living memory, has played fast and loose with the whole definition of war, as noted by iknklast.
Obama most certainly did not start the Libyan war. There had been a rising tide of unrest and insurgency for some time, with the civil war commencing in earnest on 2 Feb 2011. US and other forces began military operations on 19/20 March 2011 using UN Resolution 1973 as justification – all necessary means to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas, except for a “foreign occupation force”. As far as I’m aware, no US troops ever landed on the ground during the war, although special forces from other nations certainly did, arguably in breach of Resolution 1973.
I certainly don’t give any credence to Republican’s framing anything the way they do, given that they scream blue murder at a Democrat doing exactly what one of their own does.
To be crystal clear, I’m not defending Obama as such, and I think the outcome of western intervention has been more negative than positive. Western governments had no appetite for all out invasion (which may have worked better) and instead hoped to tip the balance in favour of more friendly, rather than less friendly, forces. In the event that was a failure in Libya and elsewhere at the time.
I do think the framing of the facts in both your posts is ambiguous, inconsistent and in some cases as far as I can tell incorrect. We don’t learn from history by doing that.