"the only winning game.., is not to play.."

[davids]

As long as the media keeps pushing it’s NEGATIVE TRUMP AT ALL COST ALL THE TIME EVEN IF THE FACTS DON”T FIT news, this is what we’ll be getting for the remainder of his term.

The “resistance” isn’t serving our country very well. Neither do Trumps Tweets...

Interesting perspective.

I had the instructive experience yesterday of jumping back & forth between the headlines on CNN & MSNBC and the headlines on Fox, spending a few hours at an airport gate while the TVs yammered. CNN & MSNBC were running with Flake's announcement and the war of words between Corker and Trump. Fox spent the evening talking about ties between Podesta and Russia.

Meanwhile the Senate, by a vote of 51-50, killed a rule that would have given citizens the ability to sue their banks. I didn't hear about that on TV.

And "the media" is not the "resistance". "The media" you're referencing is the creation of one big media player, Fox News. (Good job Fox! You're fair and balanced, after all.)

The president has the ability to suck up all the oxygen in the room, across the whole media spectrum. There's no time for reporting on the substantive news and issues when the attacks and the vitriol bring more eyes to the screen.

[theflashunc]

A fundamental misunderstanding of our opponent + a leadership team that fundamentally opposes the value of the government generally and the diplomatic corps more specifically in lieu of some ego-centric saber rattling that very well could lead to a disastrous conventional or nuclear conflict == the current state of play.

Kim Jong Un has seen what happens elsewhere when we ask for disarmament. He's not about to give up what he views as his only line of defense against the US and restarting the Korean War.

[Corso]

Mainstream media - Wikipedia

A simple definition. The major traditional news sources. You guys know this.

Other than FOX news, not one other network or major newspaper has a positive thing to say about the President. And even they called him a “clown” in the beginning. (Charles Krauthammer-who normally doesn’t call names).

If you listen with an open mind, you’ll see anything they report concerning Trump has a negative slant. “sources” report the white house is in “shambles"… report anything without reveling the sources, which I think are fabricated most of the time.

Sure, criticize when needed, but the constant slamming and negative tone does have an effect, which is what the end game is.

Bush was hammered by the press. Obama got a pass. Trump never had a chance. Whose next? The next Democrat will again be treated differently than the next Republican.

[colker]

Mainstream media - Wikipedia

Trump never had a chance. Whose next? The next Democrat will again be treated differently than the next Republican.

Trump has always been inflammatory whenever possible throwing "war", "anihilation", "fake news".. bombs all the time. Isn´t the role of POTUS to conciliate, tone down and take drama off the already difficult circumstances? Trump always plays for maximum conflict. It´s his strategy.

[Corso]

President Carter agrees with me:

>>Former President Jimmy Carter dished on President Trump in an interview where he said that the media have been a little rough with Trump compared with past presidents.
“I think the media have been harder on Trump than any other president certainly that I’ve known about,” Carter said in an interview with the New York Times’ Maureen Dowd. “I think they feel free to claim that Trump is mentally deranged and everything else without hesitation.”

Carter also came to Trump’s defense several other times during the interview, arguing that his aggressive style is not setting back U.S. relations with the world.

“Well, he might be escalating it but I think that precedes Trump,” he told the Times. “The United States has been the dominant character in the whole world and now we’re not anymore. And we’re not going to be. Russia’s coming back and India and China are coming forward.”<<

Davids: Going back & forth between Fox news and CNN is an interesting study in current day “journalism”. Hard to believe they are covering the same stories. Hopefully real journalism will someday return and the current entertainment shows will become chapters in textbooks (if they even exist in the future) on how NOT to do it.

[TTX1]

President Carter agrees with me:

>>Former President Jimmy Carter dished on President Trump in an interview where he said that the media have been a little rough with Trump compared with past presidents.
“I think the media have been harder on Trump than any other president certainly that I’ve known about,” Carter said in an interview with the New York Times’ Maureen Dowd. “I think they feel free to claim that Trump is mentally deranged and everything else without hesitation.”

Carter also came to Trump’s defense several other times during the interview, arguing that his aggressive style is not setting back U.S. relations with the world.

“Well, he might be escalating it but I think that precedes Trump,” he told the Times. “The United States has been the dominant character in the whole world and now we’re not anymore. And we’re not going to be. Russia’s coming back and India and China are coming forward.”<<

Davids: Going back & forth between Fox news and CNN is an interesting study in current day “journalism”. Hard to believe they are covering the same stories. Hopefully real journalism will someday return and the current entertainment shows will become chapters in textbooks (if they even exist in the future) on how NOT to do it.

Carter is intentionally flattering Trump to get a shot to broker another peace deal with NK. Full stop.

[BBB]

The US always has a strategic deterrent sub or two in the Pacific, strategic deterrent is for shooting back with no regard to limited strikes, it's all out end of the world stuff. The missiles have multiple nuclear warheads, they're all going somewhere.

Slight thread drift, but it is very depressing that we have the mathematical, scientific and engineering capability to destroy all life on earth and so much money, time and effort gets put into creating these weapons, yet there are millions living in poverty out there. Imagine if human kind put more effort into building, creating and preserving instead of (potentially) destroying.

[Rich Beaudoin]

BBBs comment reminded me of a conversation with my wife about how militaries are good at destruction, but there is no equivalent organization for construction. Certainly nothing with similar funding.
Building and improving is so much more difficult and slow, and it only takes one a-hole to mess-up what millions have built

[Octave]

Slight thread drift, but it is very depressing that we have the mathematical, scientific and engineering capability to destroy all life on earth and so much money, time and effort gets put into creating these weapons, yet there are millions living in poverty out there. Imagine if human kind put more effort into building, creating and preserving instead of (potentially) destroying.

The numbers are pretty variable on what it would take to end world hunger, but many estimates sit around 30bn USD per year. According to the Congressional Budget Office of the United States, the cost of nuclear forces from 2017-2026 is 400bn USD. So yes, the cost of just the nuclear arsenal of the US could solve world hunger AND leave 10bn per year on the table.

[ron l edmiston]

-- i am convinced that our government has concluded and colluded that it is to their advantage.., to justify that human life is expendable
for their economic subjective goal and profit..

i realized that conclusion in 1968 with my decision to follow orders -- taking life, losing life and so close to my life ending too..

[bigbill]

The numbers are pretty variable on what it would take to end world hunger, but many estimates sit around 30bn USD per year. According to the Congressional Budget Office of the United States, the cost of nuclear forces from 2017-2026 is 400bn USD. So yes, the cost of just the nuclear arsenal of the US could solve world hunger AND leave 10bn per year on the table.

Especially if everyone got rid of their nuclear arsenal. Until they do, who gets to have them? The US nuclear arsenal is primarily strategic deterrence, the ability to shoot back with such overwhelming force that any nation that used a nuclear weapon against the US or its allies would be wiped off the map. The nuclear genie is out of the bottle, rogue nations have weapons as well as others that have less than stable governments like Pakistan. The US, Britain, and France are the stabilizing force in nuclear deterrence, without which we'd be held hostage by threats of nuclear attack.

One of the scary scenarios we might face is an all out conventional attack of South Korea by North Korea. A sudden outpouring of all available military units and equipment that would overwhelm the South Korean and US forces at the DMZ with the purpose of taking Seoul at tremendous losses on both sides. Once Seoul is captured, to pursue an armistice by threatening a nuclear strike on our west coast. Would the US be willing to gamble a major city in a war on the Korean Peninsula or just allow N Korea to keep Seoul?

[ron l edmiston]

[QUOTE=bigbill;873871]Especially if everyone got rid of their nuclear arsenal. Until they do, who gets to have them? The US nuclear arsenal is primarily strategic deterrence, the ability to shoot back with such overwhelming force that any nation that used a nuclear weapon against the US or its allies would be wiped off the map. The nuclear genie is out of the bottle, rogue nations have weapons as well as others that have less than stable governments like Pakistan. The US, Britain, and France are the stabilizing force in nuclear deterrence, without which we'd be held hostage by threats of nuclear attack.

One of the scary scenarios we might face is an all out conventional attack of South Korea by North Korea. A sudden outpouring of all available military units and equipment that would overwhelm the South Korean and US forces at the DMZ with the purpose of taking Seoul at tremendous losses on both sides. Once Seoul is captured, to pursue an armistice by threatening a nuclear strike on our west coast. Would the US be willing to gamble a major city in a war on the Korean Peninsula or just allow N Korea to keep Seoul?

----------------------------------------------------------

-- your scary scenario is very close to reality..

ronnie

[Ras72]

Will the latest news of indictment add a layer of urgency to Trump's MO of creating distractions. Will these developments hurry him in making even more irrational decisions?
And why do I feel like I'm in the middle of binge watching Netflix's latest original series. It's as if I'm questioning the plot of this fictional life, played out by under-payed actors.
Unreal...

[bigbill]

Will the latest news of indictment add a layer of urgency to Trump's MO of creating distractions. Will these developments hurry him in making even more irrational decisions?
And why do I feel like I'm in the middle of binge watching Netflix's latest original series. It's as if I'm questioning the plot of this fictional life, played out by under-payed actors.
Unreal...

There's a difference between irrational statements and irrational actions. Trump says stuff to get a reaction and it works. SecDef Mattis and SecState Tillerson are running US foreign policy and neither are war hawks. Trump puts his trust in Mattis and he's doing a good job, just look at ISIS and Iraq. Mattis is also a career military man, he knows the horrors of war and does everything he can to prevent further involvement, but he does it from a position of strength and leverage, that hasn't always been the case. If Mattis quit, I'd worry.

[Ras72]

There's a difference between irrational statements and irrational actions. Trump says stuff to get a reaction and it works. SecDef Mattis and SecState Tillerson are running US foreign policy and neither are war hawks. Trump puts his trust in Mattis and he's doing a good job, just look at ISIS and Iraq. Mattis is also a career military man, he knows the horrors of war and does everything he can to prevent further involvement, but he does it from a position of strength and leverage, that hasn't always been the case. If Mattis quit, I'd worry.

Agree with your clarification irrational statement vs action. That's why I used 'irrational decisions'. Unfortunately, the presidency is based on words which leads to other's actions. Simple example, using the words 'little rocket man' and getting a reaction from others may lead to actions - all of which is 100% irrational.

I'm consistently reminded, words mean things; used them accurately and honestly. Especially, when they're printable or transmittable.

[theflashunc]

There's a difference between irrational statements and irrational actions. Trump says stuff to get a reaction and it works. SecDef Mattis and SecState Tillerson are running US foreign policy and neither are war hawks. Trump puts his trust in Mattis and he's doing a good job, just look at ISIS and Iraq. Mattis is also a career military man, he knows the horrors of war and does everything he can to prevent further involvement, but he does it from a position of strength and leverage, that hasn't always been the case. If Mattis quit, I'd worry.

They're such doves, in fact, they want the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force to have no geographic or time restrictions. They want the free license to do whatever they want, whenever they want, and they want Congress to give them the thumbs-up to do so. Don't bother asking why we're in Niger, ol Mad Dog and the Exxon exec know what's best. No sunset provisions, and the ability to fight wherever, whenever, with no accountability to Congress. Make room on the VW bus with the rest of the hippies for these two.

Mattis, Tillerson tell Congress new war authorization should have no time, geographic constraints | TheHill

[bigbill]

They're such doves, in fact, they want the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force to have no geographic or time restrictions. They want the free license to do whatever they want, whenever they want, and they want Congress to give them the thumbs-up to do so. Don't bother asking why we're in Niger, ol Mad Dog and the Exxon exec know what's best. No sunset provisions, and the ability to fight wherever, whenever, with no accountability to Congress. Make room on the VW bus with the rest of the hippies for these two.

Mattis, Tillerson tell Congress new war authorization should have no time, geographic constraints | TheHill

My post was a follow-up about my strategic deterrence and NK post. I read the attached link and agree with Mattis and Tillerson. You don't define your battlefield because your enemy will avoid it. You make the battlefield around your enemy. And Congress still controls funding, but we don't fight wars by committee. ISIS in Iraq and Syria is just about wiped out because the decisions were put with the battlefield commanders who had a certain amount of leeway in their responses. When the opportunity to attack ISIS existed, we went all out because that call could be made at the right level. We had tight controls prior to 9/11 with regards to the Southern No-fly Zone in Iraq. The Iraqis would light up our aircraft with fire control radar and we'd have to get permission to bomb the radar but that would be hours later and the radar was on a truck so it would be somewhere else by then. The Iraqis knew the battlefield limitations and exploited them.

[theflashunc]

My post was a follow-up about my strategic deterrence and NK post. I read the attached link and agree with Mattis and Tillerson. You don't define your battlefield because your enemy will avoid it. You make the battlefield around your enemy. And Congress still controls funding, but we don't fight wars by committee. ISIS in Iraq and Syria is just about wiped out because the decisions were put with the battlefield commanders who had a certain amount of leeway in their responses. When the opportunity to attack ISIS existed, we went all out because that call could be made at the right level. We had tight controls prior to 9/11 with regards to the Southern No-fly Zone in Iraq. The Iraqis would light up our aircraft with fire control radar and we'd have to get permission to bomb the radar but that would be hours later and the radar was on a truck so it would be somewhere else by then. The Iraqis knew the battlefield limitations and exploited them.

So we're just at war indefinitely then? 16 years now we've been fighting in a half dozen theaters across the world. The AUMF is outdated. We, as a country, are owed a debate by the body designated by the Constitution to declare war. We need a real reckoning on whether our activities across the world help create as many terrorists (ahem, ISIS) as we eliminate.

We don't write a blank check to just go fight whenever, wherever. It's left a generation of Americans maimed or dead, a bloated defense budget and very little to show for it globally. It's how you end up with dead embassy staff in Benghazi and a dead convoy team in Niger.

The fact we still feel the need to expand the fight, 16 years after it started, shows what we're doing ain't working all that well.

[bigbill]

So we're just at war indefinitely then? 16 years now we've been fighting in a half dozen theaters across the world. The AUMF is outdated. We, as a country, are owed a debate by the body designated by the Constitution to declare war. We need a real reckoning on whether our activities across the world help create as many terrorists (ahem, ISIS) as we eliminate.

We don't write a blank check to just go fight whenever, wherever. It's left a generation of Americans maimed or dead, a bloated defense budget and very little to show for it globally. It's how you end up with dead embassy staff in Benghazi and a dead convoy team in Niger.

The fact we still feel the need to expand the fight, 16 years after it started, shows what we're doing ain't working all that well.

The fight is going to expand due to the nature of the enemy. We're not fighting a country, it's an ideology and that has no boundaries. We had little show globally until the last several months when we started engaging ISIS instead of containing them. This is going to end up political, but under the last administration, the President didn't want to risk US troops, made promises of no boots on the ground, and managed the war remotely instead of putting decisions in the hands of the people on the battlefield. I lived through this during the final years of my military career and while I'm glad to be retired, I would have much preferred to fight wars as we do today.

[colker]

The fight is going to expand due to the nature of the enemy. We're not fighting a country, it's an ideology and that has no boundaries. We had little show globally until the last several months when we started engaging ISIS instead of containing them. This is going to end up political, but under the last administration, the President didn't want to risk US troops, made promises of no boots on the ground, and managed the war remotely instead of putting decisions in the hands of the people on the battlefield. I lived through this during the final years of my military career and while I'm glad to be retired, I would have much preferred to fight wars as we do today.

That´s a difficult issue because we should never be in a position to support war but... there is an idea that the US created the wars they are dragged into and that´s not true. It´s an ideology, mostly a propaganda of guilt that in the end says mostly the same as in 1939: stay away of the conflict.
The US did not create ISIS . it is not in the least responsible for it´s existence. Isis is religious, an internal division in islamism. It was created due to the military regimes in the middle east. Due to Iran. It´s an ethnical religious struggle for power. Their focus will always be the western powers because that´s their propaganda. They have an apocalyptic death wish. They are built on moral fanaticism. An external enemy is necessary. They are not set to win any war: they aim to destroy freedom in western civilization by forcing security measures.
The left says it´s only about oil in Iraq and everything else is a distraction.. Well, ISIS is not about oil: they are about mind control. They want to lead the muslim population in the world. That´s the kind of power they are after. We are not dealing w/ a pure economy driven world anymore.
The wars in Israel were the first sign of this strategy and thinking. It was the rehearsal, the lab. The israelis could not turn on their beds and expect them to go away. They adopted a state of constant vigilance and attacked preemptively. That´s how they survived.
The Left sees the world in terms of economic imperialism and the western armies as a police of money interests. It is much more than that. It is a conflict of propaganda. Western freedom of choice destroys religious obedience so they destroy back.
Isis cannot wipe out the US army but they are fighting a propaganda war. Staying away is not safe.