Fridi (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
fridi) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
talkpolitics2017-09-24 11:10 am
fridi) wrote in talkpolitics2017-09-24 11:10 am
Entry tags:
Re: Divisive Rhetoric -- Trump's UN speech
As per the monthly topic, Trump's UN speech comes just timely. If anyone had expected even a semblance of diplomacy and nuance in his address to the UN, they might've been struck by the depressing amount of predictability in the final product. Trump appeared before the UN session as a commander in chief rattling his nuclear sabres, rather than a statesman. And this failed to surprise anyone.
In his speech, he reiterated a Twitter jab he made the other day about Kim Jong Un, the Rocket Man. In the most important speech on foreign policy he has had since the start of his presidency, he told the world leaders that Rocket Man is on a suicide mission. Ha. Ha. Ha.
The insults in the speech of the president of the United States killed the last remaining hopes that he'd send an honest message to a regime that's been challenging its neighbors for years. It's time for NK to realize that quitting nukes is the only responsible future for them, Trump argued before the UN - which by itself may sound like a relatively rational requirement. Unfortunately, what would remain in memory from this speech is his choice of an Elton John song to irritate the fellow Dear Leader of a rogue state with nuclear aspirations.
His rant about Iran's nuclear deal (thanks Obama!) shows that he won't be seeking a diplomatic solution there, either. The Iran deal is one of the worst and most one-sided deals, he argued. His assertion that the deal was a mistake has increased speculations that it'll soon be scrapped. This has prompted the French foreign minister to warn of a chain reaction in the Middle East, something we've talked about here recently.
What's worse, Trump has wasted the opportunity to calm the fears about his instability and unpredictability. Instead, he said the US could wipe out an entire country of 25 million people if irritated enough. The US has immense power and patience, he said, but if they're forced to defend themselves and their allies, they'd have no choice but totally destroy North Korea. Sounds very responsible, right?
Naturally, there were lots of reactions to his crazy rant. The Iranian foreign minister said this ignorant and despicable speech belonged to the Middle Ages, not 21st century UN. Venezuelan president Maduro called it a verbal aggression from the new Hitler of international politics. As for the US Congress, a reaction is yet to be heard.
Earlier this year, congresspeople Ted Lieu and Ed Markey presented a bill to both the House and Senate about putting restraints on the first use of nuclear weapons. Congress must act for preserving global stability by limiting the circumstances by which the US could be the first side to use a nuclear weapon, they argued. The Founding Fathers have created a system of checks and balances, and it's of vital importance to apply the same standard to the threat of nuclear war, which can potentially end human civilization, they said.
But the frightening reality is that right now, the US has a commander in chief who has demonstrated his ignorance about the nuclear threat more than once; he has displayed his eagerness to be unpredictable, including on the nuclear issue, and he has made erratic comments about the nuclear program on Twitter. So, while Trump's manner of doing policy through Twitter persists, Lieu argues, we'll be needing a policy against preemptively using nukes. Markey agrees with him, adding that Trump's escalating, irresponsible, and outright frightening rhetoric about North Korea is beyond dangerous.
The two legislators are trying to raise an issue of vital importance. Sure, every president has the prerogative to defend the country when it's threatened, but as Markey argues, no president should have the power to unilaterally order a preemptive nuclear strike without approval from Congress. Such an attack would be immoral and disproportionate, and would put the US in grave risk of devastating radiation that could threaten the survival of the American people and human civilization.
After Trump's fresh amount of crazy that he has recently spilled both around Twitter and in his UN speech, the need for Congressional action has become all the more apparent. The US Constitution says that declaring war is part of the Congressional prerogatives. These now have to be re-confirmed and clearly defined, especially regarding nuclear policy. Trump's freedom to act as he pleases and unilaterally order a preemptive nuclear strike must be recognized as unconstitutional, undermocratic, and extremely dangerous.
Sure, such actions still seem improbable enough, but the very fact they're now being considered even as a remote possibility, is remarkable in itself. In his attempt to appear unpredictable, Trump has caused the whole world to panic that he's being unstable. Congress must give him a clear sign that he can't act on his own, driven by his whims, crazy impulses and delusional fantasies. This can't just be a partisan issue, there can't be an ideological division on this subject.
Because here the stakes are just too high. Politics cannot be allowed to be an obstacle. Trump's first UN speech will be remembered not for being a team-building pep talk for the international community, and a call for uniting against the challenges of the day - it'll remain as a brazen threat, a promise for the complete annihilation of another country. Let's be clear, the question is not whether the US is capable of destroying North Korea, but if we're prepared to allow South Korea, Japan and possibly Guam to be destroyed while doing it - along with hundreds of thousands of Americans, and millions of people in America's allies.
In his speech, he reiterated a Twitter jab he made the other day about Kim Jong Un, the Rocket Man. In the most important speech on foreign policy he has had since the start of his presidency, he told the world leaders that Rocket Man is on a suicide mission. Ha. Ha. Ha.
The insults in the speech of the president of the United States killed the last remaining hopes that he'd send an honest message to a regime that's been challenging its neighbors for years. It's time for NK to realize that quitting nukes is the only responsible future for them, Trump argued before the UN - which by itself may sound like a relatively rational requirement. Unfortunately, what would remain in memory from this speech is his choice of an Elton John song to irritate the fellow Dear Leader of a rogue state with nuclear aspirations.
His rant about Iran's nuclear deal (thanks Obama!) shows that he won't be seeking a diplomatic solution there, either. The Iran deal is one of the worst and most one-sided deals, he argued. His assertion that the deal was a mistake has increased speculations that it'll soon be scrapped. This has prompted the French foreign minister to warn of a chain reaction in the Middle East, something we've talked about here recently.
What's worse, Trump has wasted the opportunity to calm the fears about his instability and unpredictability. Instead, he said the US could wipe out an entire country of 25 million people if irritated enough. The US has immense power and patience, he said, but if they're forced to defend themselves and their allies, they'd have no choice but totally destroy North Korea. Sounds very responsible, right?
Naturally, there were lots of reactions to his crazy rant. The Iranian foreign minister said this ignorant and despicable speech belonged to the Middle Ages, not 21st century UN. Venezuelan president Maduro called it a verbal aggression from the new Hitler of international politics. As for the US Congress, a reaction is yet to be heard.
Earlier this year, congresspeople Ted Lieu and Ed Markey presented a bill to both the House and Senate about putting restraints on the first use of nuclear weapons. Congress must act for preserving global stability by limiting the circumstances by which the US could be the first side to use a nuclear weapon, they argued. The Founding Fathers have created a system of checks and balances, and it's of vital importance to apply the same standard to the threat of nuclear war, which can potentially end human civilization, they said.
But the frightening reality is that right now, the US has a commander in chief who has demonstrated his ignorance about the nuclear threat more than once; he has displayed his eagerness to be unpredictable, including on the nuclear issue, and he has made erratic comments about the nuclear program on Twitter. So, while Trump's manner of doing policy through Twitter persists, Lieu argues, we'll be needing a policy against preemptively using nukes. Markey agrees with him, adding that Trump's escalating, irresponsible, and outright frightening rhetoric about North Korea is beyond dangerous.
The two legislators are trying to raise an issue of vital importance. Sure, every president has the prerogative to defend the country when it's threatened, but as Markey argues, no president should have the power to unilaterally order a preemptive nuclear strike without approval from Congress. Such an attack would be immoral and disproportionate, and would put the US in grave risk of devastating radiation that could threaten the survival of the American people and human civilization.
After Trump's fresh amount of crazy that he has recently spilled both around Twitter and in his UN speech, the need for Congressional action has become all the more apparent. The US Constitution says that declaring war is part of the Congressional prerogatives. These now have to be re-confirmed and clearly defined, especially regarding nuclear policy. Trump's freedom to act as he pleases and unilaterally order a preemptive nuclear strike must be recognized as unconstitutional, undermocratic, and extremely dangerous.
Sure, such actions still seem improbable enough, but the very fact they're now being considered even as a remote possibility, is remarkable in itself. In his attempt to appear unpredictable, Trump has caused the whole world to panic that he's being unstable. Congress must give him a clear sign that he can't act on his own, driven by his whims, crazy impulses and delusional fantasies. This can't just be a partisan issue, there can't be an ideological division on this subject.
Because here the stakes are just too high. Politics cannot be allowed to be an obstacle. Trump's first UN speech will be remembered not for being a team-building pep talk for the international community, and a call for uniting against the challenges of the day - it'll remain as a brazen threat, a promise for the complete annihilation of another country. Let's be clear, the question is not whether the US is capable of destroying North Korea, but if we're prepared to allow South Korea, Japan and possibly Guam to be destroyed while doing it - along with hundreds of thousands of Americans, and millions of people in America's allies.
no subject
no subject
no subject
In terms of a real and present threat Donald Trump is way way beyond Kim Jong-Un, and other world leaders must be seriously concerned about what the mentally ill man/child will do next.