U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during an interview with Reuters in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, U.S., April 27, 2017. REUTERS/Carlos Barria
U.S. President Donald Trump said on Thursday a major conflict with North Korea is possible in the standoff over its nuclear and missile programs, but he would prefer a diplomatic outcome to the dispute.
"There is a chance that we could end up having a major, major conflict with North Korea. Absolutely," Trump told Reuters in an Oval Office interview ahead of his 100th day in office on Saturday.
Nonetheless, Trump said he wanted to peacefully resolve a crisis that has bedeviled multiple U.S. presidents, a path that he and his administration are emphasizing by preparing a variety of new economic sanctions while not taking the military option off the table.
"We'd love to solve things diplomatically but it's very difficult," he said.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: There is one thing that is very predictable about President Trump .... he loves to rattle everyone's cages and make them nervous. It is Friday morning in Asia right now, and this Reuter's interview is (not surprising) becoming the number one news story.
5 comments:
WNU,
I stand by my earlier thoughts,but I have been thinking it would be pretty hard for Russia not to profit from this Korean shindig. I don't see a down side for them regardless of the outcome.
James,
I noticed this too about the Russian position. It seems they stand to profit regardless the outcome. This is probably they seem to be laying low. They're going to win regardless.
In contast, no matter how this turns out America is going to be a net loser. While the outcome of a hot war cannot be "known" in advance, I do believe it to be a certainty that it would not be easy and the costs in terms of lives and property loss would be enormous. Even if we can find a diplomatic solution, what America will need to give up woukd be enormous. As such, America figures to be a net loser here regardless.
I wonder if the Russians played this extremely well, are our leaders this stupid, or is it some combination of these. I'm thinking some combination of these.
B,
Our leaders are not stupid, but that doesn't mean they're right (or any other leaders in this situation for that matter).
James,
Perhaps the term "stupid" is to strong a word to use when describing America's leaders. It does seem obvious though that they have been spectacularly outmaneuvered by the leaders of our adversaries going at least as far back as the mid 1990s.
For example, intervening in places like Bosnia and Ukraine just to name a couple and I could go on where there is no discernible national interests and nothing to gain coupled with huge risks and costs would seem to be not what a smart person would do. Maybe I'm missing something.
I do agree that just because someone is not stupid does not necessarily mean they are right. If it is the call of DJT and his team, to trade the South China Sea and Taiwan in exchange for Chinese help on North Korea assuming they can help sufficiently and are willing to do so, I would probably support such a position. None of these chumps would have any problem placing American heads on the chopping block to advance their interests. They'd do so without so much as agonizing over it.
Operative words are "probably support." Without all of the pertinent facts and knowing such things are fraught with risks I cannot know at this time what my position would be. Being responsible for the national security interests of the United States is hard. Sometimes I envy those who make their decisions based upon an ideology. It eliminates the thought processes and the anguish that goes with it. Just press the button one's ideology tells them to press!!
Bosnia was the one place that the u.s needed to be and had moral and kegal justifucation to act and protect safe havens established by the u.n.
Sebrinica = validation
Post a Comment