re: Is anyone else laughing about this "red line" media creation?

quote:

---

I mean...did Trump's statement not imply a certain "line" to cross?

---

again, the only reason Obama was associated with "red line" was because he literally said "red line"

Trump does stupid macho bullshite (last example was that stupidity in Long Island with the cops). it doesn't mean anything other than political pandering to his base. he's not laying out diplomatic-military policy with statements like these

now if the media wanted to call this a threat? OK. that works

but using the term "Red line" is literally nothing more than a way to link this to Obama's red line. i hope you can agree with that

then the question is why the anti-Trump media is creating this association out of thin air? the talking point has a purpose

quote:

---

Trump sent a typical macho-Trump tweet.

---

It wasn't a tweet. He stated the following on camera yesterday:

"North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen... he has been very threatening beyond a normal state. They will be met with fire, fury and frankly power the likes of which this world has never seen before."

I have no idea if any media is talking about "red lines," but if they are, it's perfectly clear why they would be. "Threats" is unambiguous. NK has only ever made "threats." @real promised "fire and fury" if there were any more threats. Well, an unusually specific threat came a few hours later. What now?

quote:

---

but using the term "Red line" is literally nothing more than a way to link this to Obama's red line. i hope you can agree with that

---

oh they are absolutely comparing the 2 statements

quote:

---

then the question is why the anti-Trump media is creating this association out of thin air? the talking point has a purpose

---

it's a "gotcha" for all the people that hated on the Obama statement

quote:

---

quote:

---

If you threaten to do something in response to a specific action, what would you call that?

---

in this case, a tweet

---

It's a generic question. What would you call it?

quote:

---

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say he was implying if something is actually done by NK.

---

It could also be Trump setting the basis for preemptive strikes on North Korea though, under the justification that North Korean threats can no longer go left unheeded on account that they are now potentially armed with nuclear tipped ICBM's. So I certainly recignize that the language could mean exactly what Trump said. The problem is that it's unclear.

It wouldn't be an illogical argument. When North Korea had no nukes, we could afford to sit idle on North Korean threats and military posturing that indicated preparations for an attack. Now that they are on the cusp of actually possessing nuclear missiles to follow through on those threats, the U.S. position is very different.

quote:

---

i get it

it was such a nothing burger i didn't even care to clarify the method of the communication. it was not a tweet it was a statement

that's irrelevant, but i admit the mistake

---

It takes a big man to admit the least of his mistakes.

quote:

---

what other option is there for their motivation for this weak association b/w the 2? i don't think the media wants Trump to actually attack NK

---

I think they are assuming, like most people, that this is mostly a war of words

I don't really like this narrative of Trump being weak right now because I don't trust him that much. I 100% believe that he is insecure enough to retaliate just based off this narrative.

It's not just that Trump never said "red line" and that Obama clearly did. That is significant but that's not all. Trump's statement -- which I don't find helpful -- is also vague and blustery about what the issue is. What would cause "fire and fury" to rain down on NK? Trump didn't say. Obama was very clear that the "red line" was the use of chemical weapons, such that it was clear when the line was crossed. As far as I can tell, Trump just blustered away and to the extent he said anything, it was that NK is courting disaster if they attack the US. Who doesn't know that!?

Now, I just wish Trump would shut up and let Tillerson handle this.

(Edited as I don't know if there was a tweet; all I saw was a statement)

quote:

---

I think they are assuming, like most people, that this is mostly a war of words

---

i agree. that's why they're preemptively declaring Trump to be the same as Obama for not attacking when the "Red line" was crossed

that's the entire narrative, and they've created it before Trump has the option not to do anything

quote:

---

I 100% believe that he is insecure enough to retaliate just based off this narrative.

---

i think the actions in the UN and Trump's past actions with NK should lessen your fear

it's clear Trump is trying to work out a diplomatic solution and is working with China (and now SK, again) to get there