I understand what you're saying, and it makes sense.words
But I really don't see our president speaking with that level of nuance or depth, at least publicly or via twitter.
Last edited:
I understand what you're saying, and it makes sense.words
With regard to North Korea, How is our situation with them any different than it was 3 years ago?
Who's "We"? The NYT/WP?. That's an incredibly hard thing to do. Currently, only two countries in the world posses that capability (who are potential adversaries).We believe they now have the capability to deliver a nuclear weapon to a U.S. territory. That is the game changer.
We believe they now have the capability to deliver a nuclear weapon to a U.S. territory. That is the game changer.
I happen to believe the message did convey the possibility of HA or NEO. Neither of us knows for sure...
Who's "We"? The NYT/WP?. That's an incredibly hard thing to do. Currently, only two countries in the world posses that capability (who are potential adversaries).
I said "we" don't know for sure. In the case you site, the VP was right there to convey a formal message. Anyone else concerned could have gotten the same message. The Columbian president's remarks are for local consumption and reveals nothing about whether he truly beleived the US was going to invade Venezuela. President Reagan was always criticized by the left and the press for bellicose talk and even war mongering. More likely to be remembered by most on this forum, President G.W. Bush was rounding criticized for what was considered needlessly belligerent "cowboy" talk. It comes with the territory if you are a GOP President. Republicans are simply not refined or intelligent enough for the nuance of international relations. In a way, it is insulting to foreign leaders and diplomats.And that is a problem, if no one knows for sure everyone can read into it what they want. That includes one of our closest allies in the region, Colombia.
I said "we" don't know for sure. In the case you site, the VP was right there to convey a formal message. Anyone else concerned could have gotten the same message. The Columbian president's remarks are for local consumption and reveals nothing about whether he truly beleived the US was going to invade Venezuela. President Reagan was always criticized by the left and the press for bellicose talk and even war mongering. More likely to be remembered by most on this forum, President G.W. Bush was rounding criticized for what was considered needlessly belligerent "cowboy" talk. It comes with the territory if you are a GOP President. Republicans are simply not refined or intelligent enough for the nuance of international relations. In a way, it is insulting to foreign leaders and diplomats.
Of course it does. Left or Right, Dem or GOP, doesn't matter. Foreign leaders are always clarifying and amplifying things about their relations with the USA and other countries, often with an inflection meant for the local audience.The fact the Colombian President had to say anything in response to a suggestion by the President that no one had seriously broached before isn't something that 'comes with the territory'.
Of course it does. Left or Right, Dem or GOP, doesn't matter. Foreign leaders are always clarifying and amplifying things about their relations with the USA and other countries, often with an inflection meant for the local audience.