The Rise of Trump

His whole back catalog is brilliant! I envy you getting to discover it fresh!

Not at all sure that we would we get ā€˜radiation sicknessā€™.

We might just end up with an increased chance of cancer in 20 years time (or no effect at all).

It really depends upon what one is exposed to and what levels and that depends very much upon whether a North Korean nuke launch creates a Mutually Assured Destruction scenario between Russia and the USA or not.

This is not to defend Trump, but the challenge is the last people on this planet that should have nukes is North Korea. Kim is the kind of guy who would nuke Australia because of sanctions.

In some respects Iā€™m glad this is coming to a head now, because the longer he goes on with Nuke development, the more Australia is at risk

Frankly I donā€™t trust either Kim nor Donā€¦ though if I had to choose Iā€™d go with Trump.

And apparently has threatened us, if we keep following US policy.

1 Like

Yup. But are we going to continue to bow down to Kim because he has nukes? So if we implement economic sanctions, he threatens us with nukes? What then? What about when he has long range missiles that can reach us because we have let him continue? Right now, he has small warheads and small missiles, but long term he is changing that and the longer he goes on, the higher the risk.

I would personally prefer they pick a fight with him now than later. I donā€™t think it will come down to war or the use of nukes, but I think it could put pressure on china to sort it out.

I wasnt making any value judgements about whether we should or should not follow in the footsteps of the USA. Iā€™ve done that before. I was simply remarking that he has threatened us.

1 Like

No problem. I read it wrong. I think right now, Kim is probably one of the dangerous people in the world. I think both Trump and Putin would avoid nuclear war at all costs because theyā€™d be aware of the implications. Kim on the other hand probably knows that if he ever loses power, heā€™s dead so heā€™d be prepared to drag the whole world down with him.

That movie (and the remake) were based on a book by Nevil Shute called, unsurprisingly, On the Beach. Forgot to comment earlier, sorry :frowning:

@missionman I think part of the problem comes back to Iraqā€¦ Bush promised Suddam had The Bomb, but no proof was found. Ok, Kim allegedly has tested NBomb/sā€¦ And is threatening the worldā€¦ So, sure, different kettle, but the pain lingers - we went into Iraq over a decade ago and itā€™s still a mess.

Perhaps now is the time to take Kim downā€¦ Iā€™ll agree no sanctions will likely workā€¦ I think the main issue is the new leader of the Free World kept asking why he couldnā€™t use nukes in the lead up to his taking power, and nowā€¦

so no one has watched john pilgerā€™s recent doco?
http://johnpilger.com/videos/trailer-the-coming-war-on-china

1 Like

I think itā€™s a challenging situation. Kim falls into the classic megalomaniac type of role, in some respects through no fault of his own, his dad would have positioned him to be where he is today and would probably have convinced him that itā€™s the best thing for the country. He has no respect for life or human rights.

On the converse, Iā€™m not saying the US is any better with some of the things they have done. I think the fact that some of the US presidents have never faced trial for the atrocities that were committed in the name of ā€œgoodā€ is a travesty in itself, but realistically we have to look at now, and the now is where we have a dangerous person with access to very dangerous weapons who will only get more dangerous in time.

Iā€™ll be honest and say I donā€™t know the right answer to how we deal with him. Kill him and there will be a catastrophe, donā€™t kill him and the same outcome could occur. The big question is which will be worse? Iā€™m glad its not my responsibility to make the decision, because I think a lot of innocent people will end up dying either way and like it or not, whoever makes that decision will have blood on their hands, even if itā€™s ultimately the right decision.

2 Likes

Well first of all, Iā€™m a politics/international relations and history double major, so that account for me knowing something about something, Iā€™m also a dual national European, so the general conjecture would be SOME anti-American bias but, itā€™s not really the case as my formal education keeps what I say in check. But this thread isnā€™t about me.

Unfortunately the propensity is that most Americans take Pax Americana all to seriously and donā€™t believe there is a world outside of Americaā€¦ The constitution is difficult to change, but it depends on how you wish to interpret it. Is it a living document? Is it how the founding fathers would have wanted. The nonsense with Gorsuch put a bad taste in my mouth.

If the Repubs thought Obama was out of control with executive orders weā€™ve seen a new level with Trump and Iā€™m beginning to lose faith that the separation of powers is doing what its supposed to do with a rampant executive. See that is the difference which makes the Australian constitution work the way it does. Our executive is always a foreign impartial third party.

I once supported an independent Australia with an Australian executive and head of state but the more I look at what goes on in the Philippines, Russia, the United States, Malaysia. Where ever there is an example of this, the lights not shining brightly on a large and unwieldy president. The more I think about it the more Iā€™m starting to believe in Pax Britannica simply because the executive cannot be manipulated in such a way as to watch the whole world burn around you.

At least in Australia when things get this unwieldy we have precedent that the commonwealth can remove a dysfunctional Prime Ministerā€¦ Now whether you believe that rightly or wrongly, it happened. It happened through an impartial third party, and Iā€™m starting to think that the checks and balances in Australia are right in these situations.

If I were an America right now, Iā€™d be burrying my head in the sand until the mid terms and then Iā€™d be voting democrat regardless of what state I was living in.

2 Likes

that is certainly an ā€˜interestingā€™ assessment of Whitlamā€™s dismissal.

1 Like

Whether you believe its right wrong or indifferent it shows how the separation of powers acts when your executive is separated from your legislature. And in the face of the current executive crisis in most nations where their president is also the head of the legislature you can start to draw your own conclusions. On all accounts whether you look at the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Russia or America. They all have the one thing in common that the executive is also the head of the legislature and resultantly all of the presidents of those nations are corrupt and unwieldy.

Meanwhile you start to look at Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and so on and so forth and in none of the aforementioned states do we see such overt corruption and manipulation of the executives power. In a practical sense the executive can never be manipulated because they are a foreign third party. You might not like the results but you can never directly blame the executive for them.

2 Likes

Two years laterā€¦

I donā€™t know if Iā€™m alone in thisā€¦ but with a lot of talk about the next US election, I was really just kind of kicking along in caretaker mode, assuming that Trump was due for expulsion sooner rather than later, and after everything, the world was still intact.

This is scary as shit.

Ok, not US / Russia / China nuclear kaboom scary, but who knows where it could lead.

The one thing that I found heartening from the story, was Trumpā€™s supposed reason for calling it off - 150 lives not worth 1 unmanned drone.

(I fully expect with the passing of time we will learn that he had other reasons for calling it offā€¦ but for this moment, Iā€™ll take what I can.)

Cheers

cosmic

Scary thing is heā€™ll probably get another term.

Isnā€™t there a ā€œthingā€ whereby people donā€™t tend to vote out leaders during warā€¦?

There are lots of us working very hard to make sure that wonā€™t happen. Iā€™ve served as a chair of the Japan-based component of the Democratic Party which represents Americans abroad (we can vote overseas). Australia has a chapter, too. I often speak to my colleagues in Australia about this. There are 8 Million Americans abroad and in 2018, we made a huge difference in flipping the House. In my own state, one House seat flipped because of overseas ballots alone.

Yes, however, the problem is, while this is one is widely to be considered a war started and desired by Trump, there is a population that wants the war, and a population that is horrified by it (I am in this camp). John Bolton is a villain of the highest order, and when Trump added him to the cabinet, it was obviously another Very Bad Thing ā„¢.

I think America is tired enough of war that this will actually hurt his reelection chances, but I donā€™t know. We have 20 candidates on the Democratic side, and I havenā€™t decided who I will vote for. It is still way too early, and Iā€™m in party leadership, soā€¦ That says a lot.

2 Likes

I donā€™t know if Americas issues relate to the same problem we have, but 90% of the problems I see in Australia is parties putting forward the most unappealing candidates who will toe the party line rather than the most popular of the candidates who go outside the party boundaries slightly which is the exact reason why people like them.

Bill Shorten is the classic example. He was not well liked by the public, but Labour still put him forward because he toed the party line and I think a lot of people voted against him rather than for other parties. Tony Abbott was the same and had the personality of a brick but they still put him forward because he toed the conservative line. When they do finally put forward a candidate, they hamstring them to prevent them doing what the public like them for. Turnbull as an example is closer to the middle ground, pro environment as opposed to far right, but he was pulled back by his party. If he had stayed closer to the middle ground, his popularity would have been higher, but instead they limited his ability to do anything close to the middle and he lost popularity as a result. Instead of realising they are the problem, they replace him and then wonder why the next leader is also unpopular for doing the same thing.

2 Likes