Donald J Trump, Catalyst for World War III?

Tagged:  

I cannot help but think that the reactive actions to world affairs (as opposed to any international policies) of Donald J. Trump will be the catalyst to bring about World War III.
What do you think?

No votes yet

If by WW III you mean that President Trump will find that big red button and lean on it, thus sending property values in Russia, North Korea, and you-name-it-stan into the toilet, I would say that the answer to that would have to be no. So no.

Do I think that Congress will declare war? Against which country or countries, precisely?

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

never met a burger he didn't like, knows what Lyin' Don is going to do.
One thing for sure. You can say with full confidence that he won't start World War III, because if World War III does happen, we'll all be dead. So no one will be around to tell you that you were wrong! Oh. And you won't be here either, MJ. Somewhat humbling...huh.

Thump isn't going to do shit. We know he isn't going to screw with Putin because Putin will release those tapes of Melania pissing on him.
So he dropped 60 million dollars worth of Tomahawk missiles on a little used airfield that the Syrians had operational the next day. Whoopee fucking doo. Thump changes his position every other day depending on which way the wind blows. He is all bull shit. that is why he won't release his tax returns.

Hope I didn't offend anyone!

in my opinion... just hard to tell. The following is from henrymakow.com (Canadian inventor of board game Scruples):
*********************************************

Five Ways the N Korea Situation could spiral out of control
by Sean Illing
(excerpt by henrymakow.com)

To understand how close we are to full-scale conflict in North Korea, I reached out to Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies. Lewis focuses on nuclear nonproliferation, international security, and disarmament, and he is the author of Minimum Means of Reprisal: China's Search for Security in the Nuclear Age.

Scenario 1: The North Koreans mistakenly believe that we are going to launch an attack on them, and Kim Jong Un does something crazy.

The big dilemma here is that, in North Korea at least, everything is organized around the fear that they will be invaded, and that Kim Jong Un will end up like Muammar Qaddafi in Libya or Saddam Hussein in Iraq. But unlike Qaddafi or Hussein, Kim has actually acquired nuclear weapons, and if you look at the missile testing they do, a lot of these are tests that have already been conducted. What they're doing, in fact, is practicing hitting airfields or other targets that the US would likely use to sustain an invasion.

As far as we can tell, the North Korean theory is that on the first day of a potential war with America, if they just use a bunch of nuclear weapons -- in South Korea, in Japan potentially -- the damage will be so severe that we will be deterred from future aggression, or that the costs will be so high that a successful invasion will be impossible. But for this strategy to be effective, it means North Korea has to go nuclear first, to raise the stakes to an impossibly high level right at the beginning.

My worry is that Trump says or does something incautious or imprudent, as he often does, which North Korea interprets as deadly serious and decides to escalate immediately to deter a potential invasion. It's easy to see how things could get out of hand in a hurry. Continued

cumings.jpg
US Pigheadedness is Behind NK's Nuclear Provocations by Bruce Cumings, retired professor of E Asian History, U of Chicago

The North wouldn't have nukes if we'd kept our word in the past.

As I wrote for this magazine in January 2016, the North Koreans must be astonished to discover that US leaders never seem to grasp the import of their history-related provocations. Even more infuriating is Washington's implacable refusal ever to investigate our 72-year history of conflict with the North; all of our media appear to live in an eternal present, with each new crisis treated as sui generis. Visiting Seoul in March, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson asserted that North Korea has a history of violating one agreement after another; in fact, President Bill Clinton got it to freeze its plutonium production for eight years (1994-2002) and, in October 2000, had indirectly worked out a deal to buy all of its medium- and long-range missiles. Clinton also signed an agreement with Gen. Jo Myong-rok stating that henceforth, neither country would bear "hostile intent" toward the other.

The Bush administration promptly ignored both agreements and set out to destroy the 1994 freeze. Bush's invasion of Iraq is rightly seen as a world-historical catastrophe, but next in line would be placing North Korea in his "axis of evil" and, in September 2002, announcing his "preemptive" doctrine directed at Iraq and North Korea, among others. The simple fact is that Pyongyang would have no nuclear weapons if Clinton's agreements had been sustained.

Now comes Donald Trump, blasting into a Beltway milieu where, in recent months, a bipartisan consensus has emerged based on the false assumption that all previous attempts to rein in the North's nuclear program have failed, so it may be time to use force--to destroy its missiles or topple the regime. Last September, the centrist Council on Foreign Relations issued a report stating that "more assertive military and political actions" should be considered, "including those that directly threaten the existence of the [North Korean] regime." Tillerson warned of preemptive action on his recent East Asia trip, and a former Obama-administration official, Antony Blinken, wrote in The New York Times that a "priority" for the Trump administration should be working with China and South Korea to "secure the North's nuclear arsenal" in the event of "regime change." But North Korea reportedly has some 15,000 underground facilities of a national-security nature. It is insane to imagine the Marines traipsing around the country in such a "search and secure" operation, and yet the Bush and Obama administrations had plans to do just that. Obama also ran a highly secret cyber-war against the North for years, seeking to infect and disrupt its missile program. If North Korea did that to us, it might well be considered an act of war.

On November 8, 2016, nearly 66 million voters for Hillary Clinton received a lesson in Hegel's "cunning of history." A bigger lesson awaits Donald Trump, should he attack North Korea. It has the fourth-largest army in the world, as many as 200,000 highly trained special forces, 10,000 artillery pieces in the mountains north of Seoul, mobile missiles that can hit all American military bases in the region (there are hundreds), and nuclear weapons more than twice as powerful as the Hiroshima bomb (according to a new estimate in a highly detailed Times study by David Sanger and William Broad).

Last October, I was at a forum in Seoul with Strobe Talbott, a former deputy secretary of state for Bill Clinton. Like everyone else, Talbott averred that North Korea might well be the top security problem for the next president. In my remarks, I mentioned Robert McNamara's explanation, in Errol Morris's excellent documentary The Fog of War, for our defeat in Vietnam: We never put ourselves in the shoes of the enemy and attempted to see the world as they did. Talbott then blurted, "It's a grotesque regime!" There you have it: It's our number-one problem, but so grotesque that there's no point trying to understand Pyongyang's point of view (or even that it might have some valid concerns). North Korea is the only country in the world to have been systematically blackmailed by US nuclear weapons going back to the 1950s, when hundreds of nukes were installed in South Korea. I have written much about this in these pages and in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Why on earth would Pyongyang not seek a nuclear deterrent? But this crucial background doesn't enter mainstream American discourse. History doesn't matter, until it does--when it rears up and smacks you in the face.
********************************
I do happen to agree with Michael Savage who is screaming that the Syria situation was a false flag event. Whoever is controlling Trump is nuts.

from Buchanan:

http://www.wnd.com/2017/04/war-cries-drown-out-america-first/

One of Woodrow Wilson's campaign slogans when campaigning for his 2nd term was: "He kept us out of war". The "Great War" started in his 2nd term. We had no business whatsoever in that conflict. It devastated an entire generation of American young men Smedley Butler's great "War is a Racket" explains the "follow the money" real reason Wilson dragged us into that godless mess.

Like Buchanan points out... whatever happened to "America First"? Yet another new prez who gave us to believe he was anti-war (like Bobo, for just one), appears to not care that Americans are war weary, wary, and dead set against it. And how does the Donald not get that this is CRAZY? Regardless of who is whispering in his ear to the contrary?

Stick-it-to-em Donald! After 8 years of having a patsy who loved every country more than ours, it's time to show the world that the U.S. is back and in charge.

Nothing warms my heart more than seeing the liberals fall all over themselves trying to trash Trump.

are opposed to America as the world's police! Lyin' Don appealed to others who like to hear tough talk, like aka GALT! I'm still awaiting the "Big Stick," being used on North Korea myself. Lyin' Don is all talk with North Korea. He even lied to the world about a flotilla of American vessels going toward the Korean Peninsula! But Lyin' Don does it and NEVER apologizes.
"As soon as by one's own propaganda even a glimpse of right on the other side is admitted, the cause for doubting one's own right is laid." Guess where this quote is from, aka GALT!

Tee hee, tee hee--makes me sooooooo happy when liberals are upset about PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP! Give us more!

possibility of war under your favorite POTUS, aka GALT.
Get a clue, aka GALT. Many conservatives and other Republicans do not like this POTUS!
He couldn't even get a health care package through the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Republicans hold a clear majority, with Democrats having no filibuster power. As of April 11, 2017, the count was 238 Republicans; 193 Democrats; 4 vacancies.

In Lyin' Don's own words from a tweet on March 30, 2017, at 9:07 A.M.: "The Freedom Caucus will hurt the entire Republican agenda if they don't get on the team, & fast," Trump tweeted. "We must fight them, & Dems, in 2018!" FYI, aka GALT, the self-proclaimed "Freedom Caucus" is made up of conservative Republicans!
Tee hee, tee hee -- makes me sooooooo happy when a Republican POTUS like Lyin Don the Michelin Man who never met a burger he didn't like is so upset with conservative Republicans! Give us more, PLEASE!!
I do apologize about using facts in my argument, aka GALT. I know that you prefer gut feelings instead.

epitomized by your Republican POTUS?

Well, he'll have to try a little harder to reach Bill Clinton's league, but I hope he does--why--because it makes you liberals so damned upset.

We won, Hillary lost! We won, Hillary lost! We won, Hillary lost! We won, Hillary lost! We won, Hillary lost! We won, Hillary lost! We won, Hillary lost! We won, Hillary lost! We won, Hillary lost! We won, Hillary lost! We won, Hillary lost! We won, Hillary lost! We won, Hillary lost! We won, Hillary lost! We won, Hillary lost! We won, Hillary lost! We won, Hillary lost! We won, Hillary lost! We won, Hillary lost! We won, Hillary lost! We won, Hillary lost! We won, Hillary lost! We won, Hillary lost! We won, Hillary lost! We won, Hillary lost! We won, Hillary lost! We won, Hillary lost! We won, Hillary lost! We won, Hillary lost! We won, Hillary lost!

Hey Dale--if EVERYONE who voted for Trump hates him and won't vote for him again, you know what that would mean? HIllary was beaten by a one-term President!

Ohhhhhhh--this ONLY gets better!

attitude toward politicians, not liberals. FG is a conservative. It is CONSERVATIVES who are the strongest opponents of America being the world's police force!

aka GALT: You're stating that I wrote things I NEVER wrote. Here's what I actually wrote, and what I actually think on this topic: "Now, let me be clear. I could not care less about this man's personal life, as long as he has not broken any laws. To me, whether I like the way he conducts political business or not, his private life should remain private. But, it's the holier-than-thou conservatives and Republicans who feign concern about the personal morals of public figures." I guess the only way you can win an argument is by lying, aka GALT. Worked for Lyin' Don the Michelin Man who never met a burger he didn't like! I NEVER stated that "...EVERYONE who voted for Trump hates him..." Is that what you think aka GALT?
And, for the record. there are positions taken by this POTUS with which I agree. IMHO, America has been a patsy in too many foreign trade agreements. I have consistently agreed with our own local Democratic Member of Congress, Marcy Kaptur, that NAFTA has more negatives than positives for American companies, and American workers! Our tax code is too complex. Our corporate tax rate is too high, but there are too many tax loopholes which allow most of the largest corporations not to pay anything close to that rate. These are areas where Republicans have traditionally wanted the POTUSes to act the way they have. Giant international corporations want the freedom to open and close plants wherever they want, and to do business wherever in the world they like, unfettered! Giant corporations also want to pay workers the lowest possible wages and few or no benefits, too. And most of these giant corporations and their leadership support Republicans for POTUS, for Congress, and for other elective offices up and down the ballot. THAT'S what Lyin' Don is up against.
My main point is very simple, really. It's not voters of Lyin' Don who are upset with him. It's traditional conservative Republican POLITICIANS. So, aka GALT, when you tee-hee at liberals. I tee-hee at the split between the Republican POTUS and Republicans in Congress!
BTW -- When I voted for Hillary in the 2016 General Election, it was the first time I ever voted for her. I did not support her in the 2008 Democratic Primary Election, nor did I support her in the 2016 Democratic Primary Election. She was not my first choice, but she would have been much better than the international political ignoramus, narcissistic, misogynist-in-chief we now have. BTW -- You never answered, aka GALT. How do you like your Republican POTUS's "Family Values?"

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.