Trump Blatantly Lies About His Position on Japanese Nukes
CNN calls this a flip-flop. No. A flip-flop is when you change your mind. This is a lie. Here, Trump denies having said Japan should get nukes, while (as the video shows) Trump said Japan should get nukes.
He’s stupid and dishonest and incompetent and embarrassing.
If you’re determined to vote for him, I’m not trying to persuade you otherwise. You’re unpersuadable. In return, perhaps you can give up trying to persuade me to vote for this trogolodyte. It will never ever ever happen, so save your breath.
So why do I blog this stuff? Because it amuses me, in a dark and depressing sort of way, to catalogue all the stuff this guy says and does . . . while watching people continue to defend him. It’s hard not to entertain the possibility that this is a giant cosmic game, where some Higher Power just wants to see exactly how ridiculous a human being can be, while still having millions of people want him to be their ruler. And the Higher Power just keeps turning the dial towards peak ridiculousness, and people keep on defending him.
That’s probably not what’s going on. But if it were . . . what would be different?
Meanwhile, Hillary gave some speech or other. Watching true things come out of her mouth, like her valid criticisms of Donald Trump, is more than slightly nauseating and jarring. Plus I consider her to be a giant warmonger who will, no doubt in my mind, get us into some kind of war. So they can both go straight to hell.
Patterico (86c8ed) — 6/2/2016 @ 6:29 pm“what would be different?”
Any decent deus ex machina would go for lightning at the appropriate moment.
On a cloudless day.
With no thunder involved.
Rick Ballard (7727d9) — 6/2/2016 @ 6:33 pmlet see thanks to wendy sherman and lurch, the mad tyrant of pyongyang will have 10-20 nuclear weapons, with the delivery systems to match, logic demands that japan and probably taiwan for good measure, have some defensive system,
narciso (732bc0) — 6/2/2016 @ 6:37 pmYou can rest easy – it’s
still a lie. It was a carefully limited attack that didn’t get down to the real truth.
A comment on another thread linked to this:
http://johntreed.com/blogs/john-t-reed-s-real-estate-investment-blog/114332355-media-still-not-quite-getting-the-whole-story-of-trump-unviersity
This was something other people brought to Trump. They had done the same thing with other personalities. Hillary was speaking only about Trump, like the Trump University scam only involved Trump, or was he only one (although she didn’t say so)
Of course, this sort of thing being around, is something Trump should have known about. It was impossible for him not to know the whole idea was fraudulant.
Trump University actualy started out as something else – online courses , good instructors and not so expensive. Then it changed after a year or two.
Sammy Finkelman (eb1481) — 6/2/2016 @ 7:05 pmI’m cheering you on, Pat, because I want there to be a permanent record of firm and principled resistance.
I am proud of the fact that I can search this blog eight years in the past and see my skepticism about Barack Obama largely fulfilled. But IMHO, the Trump phenomenon is worse. All of us have watched Obama, a newcomer to Washington, snow people into thinking he could bring America together with his oratorical skills. Now many of the same people who said they saw through Obama are swearing that there’s a “there” there in draft-dodging rank-amateur Trump’s mercurial trash talk.
If Hillary Clinton is the liberty-sucking nuclear-powered swamp monster you think she is, than maddoggit, you should’ve sent a man (you know what I mean) to do the job of defeating the weakest candidate since McGovern. I warned you all early on that failing to abort the idea of a Trump nomination could mean the death of the GOP as we know it (NOT a good thing). And now, the de facto head of the party is an adult baby that may (or may not) have billions of dollars.
L.N. Smithee (b84cf6) — 6/2/2016 @ 7:30 pmDing ding ding ding ding. We have a winner.
Patterico (86c8ed) — 6/2/2016 @ 7:33 pmThe PRC would never tolerate a NORK attack on Taiwan. They want that island intact.
Japan and South Korea another story. I’m more familiar with the situation in Japan. That country could have nuclear weapons in such rapid, short order your head would spin. The infrastructure is in place, and despite Hiroshima and Nagasaki the Japanese government has never ruled out acquiring nuclear weapons.
And they don’t need Donald Trump to tell them whether or not they acquire nukes. That depends on us, and whether or not they consider us a reliable ally. And their confidence in our reliability has been badly shaken by 8 years of Obama’s fecklessness. We’ve let the Senkaku Islands situation deteriorate as King Putt kowtows to China. Despite the fact the Senkakus are specifically included as Japanese territory in our Treaty of Mutual Assistance and Security with the GoJ the fact that this administration has gone supine when confronting China leaves them with no confidence in us as an ally.
But Trump hasn’t helped the situation with his stupid comments. We certainly don’t want Japan to rearm, and they already pay a lot of money for us to station forces in Japan.
We’re not doing them a favor. We’re doing us a favor, as any WWII vet who fought in the Pacific could tell you.
Steve57 (e33d44) — 6/2/2016 @ 7:40 pmI was thinking the situation is more like this
http://www.coldwar.org/articles/50s/pershing_missiles.asp
china think it has the north korean tiger by the tale, but as with the ussr and cuba, I’m not that confident, also the ddr had more extensive ties with terrorists than the core regime would allow,
narciso (732bc0) — 6/2/2016 @ 7:44 pmTrump’s position on nuclear weapons in Japan is well-informed, consistent, and sensible. Let me lay it out for you, Patterico. These are facts, not hype. Let’s start with the New York Times of March 27, 2016.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/us/politics/donald-trump-transcript.html
“It’s a very scary nuclear world. Biggest problem, to me, in the world, is nuclear, and proliferation. At the same time, you know, we’re a country that doesn’t have money….So, the bottom line is, I think that frankly, as long as North Korea’s there, I think that Japan having a capability is something that maybe is going to happen whether we like it or not.”
Next, Fox News on April 3, 2016.
http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2016/04/03/donald-trump-fights-to-win-over-women-reince-priebus-on-possibility-contested/
“At some point, we have to say, you know what, we’re better off if Japan protects itself against this maniac in North Korea….My number one choice is, leave it the way it is, but they have to pay us because we cannot afford to continue to lose the billions and billions of dollars that we’re losing in order to defend Japan and Germany and South Korea and Saudi Arabia”.
And lastly, the New York Times of April 2, 2016.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/04/02/donald-trump-tells-crowd-hed-be-fine-if-nato-broke-up/
“I would rather have them not arm, but I’m not going to continue to lose this tremendous amount of money….And frankly, the case could be made, that let them protect themselves against North Korea. They’d probably wipe them out pretty quick.”
All of these statements are smart and consistent. Japan may go for nukes if China doesn’t make North Korea give up its nukes. Japan may do that whether we want them to or not. It would be best if Japan doesn’t go nuclear and if Japan coughs up more dough for us to protect them. Suggesting we may stop giving nuclear protection to Japan if they don’t pay up is added reason for China to crack down on North Korea, so that Japan will be more inclined to pay us rather than going nuclear. The Obama-Hillary policy on North Korea has failed at curbing proliferation there, and Trump outlines a different strategy that could succeed, not to mention helping us financially. Be calm, meditate, and wise up! Thank you.
Andrew Hyman (b12b60) — 6/2/2016 @ 8:47 pmWatch the video before you call his position “consistent,” Andrew. He said one thing and then denied he said it. That is not “consistent.”
Patterico (86c8ed) — 6/2/2016 @ 8:55 pmI’ve looked at those video snippets, and the earlier snippet has him saying basically that “maybe” Japan would be better off with nukes because they could deal with North Korea.
Jesus Christ, that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t prefer it if China would crack down on North Korea, and Japan would pay us more for nuclear protection, and Japan would continue to forswear nukes. It just means that “maybe” Japan getting nukes would be better than the status quo, in which we get financially shortchanged for the nuclear umbrella, and we do basically nothing to rein in North Korea.
I was for Cruz too, but when he lost I didn’t go off the frigging deep end. Please be sober about this. You’re a (somewhat) influential guy, after all, and rightly so I might add.
Andrew Hyman (b12b60) — 6/2/2016 @ 9:05 pmAndrew, characterizing at as him saying “maybe” doesn’t begin to describe the forcefulness with which Trump advocates Japan having nukes in the clip. Fortunately for all of us, we need not argue the point further, because the video is right there in the post and it’s very short, meaning anyone can watch it and decide for themselves which of us is more accurately characterizing it.
Patterico (86c8ed) — 6/2/2016 @ 9:12 pm“Trump is consistent.” — Anyone who says that is either a fool or dishonest. And sometimes both.
John Hitchcock (7f23d9) — 6/2/2016 @ 9:15 pmSure, let them watch the tiny little sour byte clip, and not read any of the extended quotations that I gave putting the matter in context. And I didn’t say Trump has always been consistent about everything.
Andrew Hyman (b12b60) — 6/2/2016 @ 9:18 pmsour >> sound
Andrew Hyman (b12b60) — 6/2/2016 @ 9:19 pmTrump is not consistent about any subject matter.
John Hitchcock (7f23d9) — 6/2/2016 @ 9:19 pmTrump lies about the little things.
Trump lies about the big things.
Trump lies about the yuge things.
Trump lies about whether he lied.
Trump lies about whether he’s a Christian.
Trump lies about whether he’s a Republican.
That’s one thing Trump is consistent at: lying.
John Hitchcock (7f23d9) — 6/2/2016 @ 9:21 pmSure he’s consistent about lots of things. He consistently says that he loves his children and is proud of them. Need more examples?
Andrew Hyman (b12b60) — 6/2/2016 @ 9:22 pmClinton has that consistency republicans vote for.
mg (f81376) — 6/2/2016 @ 9:24 pmTry something pertinent to the job he’s applying for. Not irrelevancies. There are people serving Life in Prison who love their children and are proud of them.
John Hitchcock (7f23d9) — 6/2/2016 @ 9:26 pmMG, just stop. #NeverTrump #NeverClinton. What part of that do you not understand? Try being honest.
John Hitchcock (7f23d9) — 6/2/2016 @ 9:26 pmprobably he’ll need to deploy them, around hakodate maybe south near takashima afb,
narciso (732bc0) — 6/2/2016 @ 9:27 pmyou stop, I stop. unless your a Sanders republican
mg (f81376) — 6/2/2016 @ 9:32 pmDon’t dish it out if you can’t handle the b.s.
mg (f81376) — 6/2/2016 @ 9:34 pmOh I see. So what you meant to say, Mr. Hitchcock, is “Trump is not consistent about any RELEVANT subject matter.” Well, he’s consistently said that he wants to reduce illegal immigration hasn’t he? Or did I miss the part where he cheered for sanctuary cities?
Andrew Hyman (e8ded8) — 6/2/2016 @ 9:35 pmMG, you’re just being dishonest and inflammatory. People who know the truth know you’re being dishonest and inflammatory.
John Hitchcock (7f23d9) — 6/2/2016 @ 9:35 pmI take after you, John Hitchcock. As I am tired of your hateful b.s.
mg (f81376) — 6/2/2016 @ 9:38 pmSaying Romney’s self-deportation plan is cruel and that the Democrats have their hearts in the right place is not consistent with wanting fewer illegals.
His revolving door in his never-to-be-built wall is not consistent with wanting fewer illegals.
His change in stance from an absolutely built wall to a suggested wall is not consistent.
He was for illegals before he was against them.
John Hitchcock (7f23d9) — 6/2/2016 @ 9:39 pmNo, mg, I’m principled. You’re not.
John Hitchcock (7f23d9) — 6/2/2016 @ 9:40 pmHe was good to his mother, too.
And I’ve never seen him kick a dog.
As for “reducing illegal immigration”, those illegal workers he hired and was fined(?) for might seem an inconsistency to some captious person. I know, I know, these days you cannot get anything built without bribing politicians or hiring illegals.
nk (dbc370) — 6/2/2016 @ 9:44 pmI’m proud of you.
mg (f81376) — 6/2/2016 @ 9:45 pmTime for a walk down Doheny state beach, a darn beautiful place.
He never said he wants a “revolving door”. He never said the wall is “never-to-be-built”. If you want to argue inconsistent positions, you don’t get to advertise one actual position, and then fabricate the other opposing position.
And if a person says something many years ago, and has thought better of it, that’s best understood as a “changed” position. Opposite positions that are approximately contemporaneous are best understood as “inconsistent” positions.
Andrew Hyman (e8ded8) — 6/2/2016 @ 9:46 pmnk (dbc370) — 6/2/2016 @ 9:44 pm
1. He didn’t hire them, his subcontractor diid (but he probably knew it)
2. This was before Simpson Mazzoli, before 1986. Hiring them was not against the law in 1980.
3. The issue was not paying them the minimum wage or overtime, and having an arrangement with the union where money was not contributed to the union pension fund. Something like that.
4. He was sued, and after a very long time, finally settled, in preparation for his run for president in 1999. He was not fined by any court. He was ordered to pa back wages and interest, but this case continued through the courts until he settled.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/feb/25/marco-rubio/marco-rubio-says-donald-trump-had-pay-1-million-hi/
Further links in he article.
Sammy Finkelman (eb1481) — 6/2/2016 @ 10:06 pmThere is a frontier between saying Japan might seek out nukes, and japan should seek out nukes.
You think they might be able to handle the Jet Age technology?
What you’re missing is a boundary. A mental border. Where there should be a fence. Or maybe even a wall. We could have ivy. Hold graffiti contests. Set up a skateboard ramp.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 6/2/2016 @ 10:20 pmLook who’s talking about a “mental border”.
……………………..
Luke Stywalker (bc0335) — 6/3/2016 @ 1:43 amYou figure I worry for nothing?
papertiger (c2d6da) — 6/3/2016 @ 2:51 amOK, someone please explain why we shouldn’t want civilised countries like Japan and South Korea to have nukes. How is non-proliferation different from the anti-gun position that we oppose for good reasons? Surely a world in which presumably decent countries all have the means to defend themselves is a safer world, even if it means it’s slightly easier for criminal countries to arm themselves too, just as a country where presumably decent people have the means to defend themselves is a safer country even if it means many criminals also have easier access to the means to attack others. How is expecting non-nuclear countries to depend on their nuclear allies to defend them different from expecting people to rely on the police?
Milhouse (87c499) — 6/3/2016 @ 6:42 amIn both Japan and South Korea, “civilization” is a thin veneer that was imposed by military occupation after 1945. Would you have wanted them to have nukes before 1945?
nk (dbc370) — 6/3/2016 @ 6:51 amPre-’45 Japan was a very different kind of country. The occupation broke them, which they badly needed. If we claim that an armed society is a polite society, and we include in that the children and grandchildren of criminals, why should we take a different attitude to Japan and every other non-criminal country having access to nuclear arms?
And what am I missing about pre-’45 Korea that should make me not have wanted them to have nukes? (Other, of course, than the fact that they were under Japanese occupation, which surely is a point in their favor, not against them.)
Milhouse (87c499) — 6/3/2016 @ 7:11 amMilhouse, the fact that Japan still plays games with revisionist versions of its own history, rewriting itself as victim, puts your claim in doubt.
Modern South Korea isn’t as stable as you assume either. There is a reason the US still commands all forces in Korea and it’s not to protect South Korea from North.
SPQR (a3a747) — 6/3/2016 @ 7:26 amInter alia:
The populations of South Korea and Japan have embraced theoretical and actual nuclear weapons non-proliferation for decades. Meanwhile it appears to me that a fairly unrepresentative clique seek to impose anti-gun legislation on the rest of the populace in your country. Is this a mistaken view on my part?
South Korea and Japan have the conventional means (if not always the inclination in the case of the latter) to defend themselves from potentially or currently hostile regional states.
Individual self-interest and self-protection is not necessarily congruent with national interest and national defence policy. And so on.
JP (bd5dd9) — 6/3/2016 @ 7:30 amAgain, how is non-proliferation consistent with a view that favors free access to arms by anyone who is not known to be an aggressor?
Milhouse (87c499) — 6/3/2016 @ 7:32 amThe population in my state is heavily anti-gun. Does that make their position right?! Since when are right and wrong determined by numbers?
Milhouse (87c499) — 6/3/2016 @ 7:34 amHymen is a skilled apologist. If you just read what Hymen wrote, you might think Trump didn’t say what he did say.
JD (2e3880) — 6/3/2016 @ 7:54 amIt probably isn’t, but that wasn’t the original question. Moreover, free access to arms is not the same thing as election to possess and maintain arms.
Unlike a lot of anti-gun (or pro-gun control, if you like) laws in the US, non-proliferation policies haven’t been imposed on most Japanese or South Koreans. That’s a fairly important distinction (e.g. I don’t believe the population of apartheid-era South Africa wasn’t consulted on whether development of a nuclear arsenal was a sensible national security posture or use of government resources).
NB: my understanding is that most South Koreans active nuclear research, and there isn’t much doubt that either state is quite capable of developing short- or mid-range nuclear-tipped ballistic systems on fairly short (high months, low years) notice.
JP (bd5dd9) — 6/3/2016 @ 8:07 amTypo – should be “were consulted”
JP (bd5dd9) — 6/3/2016 @ 8:31 amAbe is the grandson of class a war criminal kishi, also a fmr pm
narciso (732bc0) — 6/3/2016 @ 8:39 amShot:
Chaser:
Its funny how the Trumpers can’t allow ANY room for Trump’s lies.
Thank you Patterico for documenting this for the future.
Patrick Henry, the 2nd (ddead1) — 6/3/2016 @ 8:51 am42. Milhouse (87c499) — 6/3/2016 @ 7:32 am
Most people who favor free access to arms actually don’t. There is no lobbying against the 1934 Firearms Act, which restricts the purchase of machine guns, or at least makes them cost a lot. Neither is anyone manufacturing “gadget guns” but every gun is readily identifiable as a firearm. Nobody seems to be interested in overturning that prohibition and selling James Bond weapons. (of course you can have some custom made)
Sammy Finkelman (eb1481) — 6/3/2016 @ 10:14 amI think the argument for limiting nuclear proliferation is that the fewer actors around the world who have them, the better, because each one of them includes a possibility of something going wrong.
Of course maximum safety does NOT lie in attempted total disarmament of everyone, but in one rather benign power being dominant. That was the situation of Great Britain on the high seas in the 1800s. And that may be the position with regard to nuclear weapons now.
The question still is: Why would Japan and South Korea having nuclear weapons be any different than Britain and France having them? They’re not countries to worry about – not very very much anyway. So why is that is a problem?
The fear here is, I guess, that if Japan and South Korea had nuclear weapons, and were not clearly being defended, or under the nuclear umbrella of the United States North Korea might feel somewhat emboldened to use its nuclear weapons, figuring it could deter a response.
I mean terrorism works that way.
One act of terrorism doesn’t lead to a big war. Maybe it used to. No nation, would have done that before the 1960s. Now we have lots of terroism.
Now, actually there was a time, long ago, when some nations did try terrorism but thought they could avoid a war. Serbia did engage in acts of terrorism in 1914. And Germany did that too during World War I, but at least the terrorism, or sabotage, it did in the United States circa 1916 was strictly limited to something that would affect the war in Europe.
Anyway, North Korea could think, that with the United States out of the picture, and Donald Trump has talked that way, it might be possible to get away with threatening the use of an atomic bomb, or even using it. It could do that, even if that would actually be a serious miscalculation. North Korea seems to approve of that kind of change, so that’s not good.
Sammy Finkelman (eb1481) — 6/3/2016 @ 10:18 amRe: miscalculation:
You could also say that Osama bin Laden miscalculated on Sept 11. 2001. He surely didn’t expect to instigate a war. What could have been the reason for 9/11? Perhaps he wanted to demonstrate the impotence of the United States so that the resistance to the Taliban in Afghanistan would end because they would all give up hope, especially since the military leader was of the Northern Alliance was assassinated right before.
I mean if the U.S. would do nothing after the Pentagon was attacked, it surely wouldn’t defend anybody in Afghanistan!
It had the opposite effect, though. The United States didn’t do nothing, or nothing of significance, but almost destroyed al Qaeda. (Almost because the United States relied on Pakistan to deal with members of al Qaeda wgo crossed the border)
But maybe this was a closer call than it appears. Maybe things would have worked out OK in 2001 for Osama bin Laden if Al Gore was president.
Sammy Finkelman (eb1481) — 6/3/2016 @ 10:21 amIf you go to the Hiroshima memorial you’d never know there was a war on. WWII is never mentioned, so the memorial makes it sound like one nice day in the summer of 1945 the Americans just out of the blue and for no reason at all dropped an atomic bomb on peaceful Japan. Why the hell did they do that.
Also there’s an an inscription on the memorial cenotaph that is ominously ambiguous. It leaves out the subject of the sentence; it transliterates into to English as “Please rest in peace, for (blank) shall not repeat the error (or mistake).” So in Japanese it could be taken as “the Americans shall not repeat the error.”
To be fair the professor who wrote the inscription says that the subject is “we” meaning all people everywhere, and instead of “error” he meant “evil;” meaning the evil of war. So there’s an English language plaque “clarifying” the statement but nothing of the sort in Japanese. Again, in Japanese it just means a mistake or error, and there’s nothing there to connect that mistake or error to the “evils of war.”
Japanese history textbooks tend to rush past the events of the 1930s and ’40s and basically sum it all up as “a lot of bad things happened and now a lot of people really don’t like us because they blame us for it” and then move on to the ’50s. Not every Japanese is so unaware of history; you’ll see many Japanese tourists at the Arizona memorial. And if you’ve ever been there you know they show a film about the attack before they’ll take you on a short boat ride out to the actual memorial. But many Japanese don’t even know there was anything such as WWII. If you run into these tourists in Hawaii after they get over their initial shock they’ll ask who won. And you can’t really blame them given all the signs in Japanese.
As an aside, a lot of Japanese are no better with geography. Every once in a while violence will flair up in the Philippines, tourists get kidnapped and beheaded, etc. When I was stationed in Japan a lot of Japanese would never have gone to the Philippines.
So resort owners on the island of Mindoro came up with a brilliant advertising idea. They’d advertise vacation packages on Mindoro and never mention the island was part of the Philippines. And it worked; the Japanese tourists had no idea they were in the Philippines.
Steve57 (e33d44) — 6/3/2016 @ 12:23 pmAlso to be fair in polite Japanese it would be unusual to mention the subject, so the inscription isn’t so strange in that regard. It’s possible to be blunt and to the point in Japanese, but the Japanese consider it rude. So much so that I knew musicians in Japan who learned English just so they could honestly communicate with other band members and critique each others work.
But the ambiguity means that Japanese people are left to fill in the blank on their own, which is difficult to do if you don’t have the historical context. Such as at the Hiroshima Peace Park. It leads to a lot of misunderstanding.
Steve57 (e33d44) — 6/3/2016 @ 12:47 pmThanks, I try to argue persuasively and sincerely — and I try not to misspell my name, because of the anatomical connotations! 😜
Andrew Hyman (b12b60) — 6/3/2016 @ 1:00 pmOn that point, you ain’t seen nothing until you see Trump-humper Jeffrey Lord make an ass of himself (OK, a bigger one) under scrutiny of Anderson Cooper re Trump University. Bold and italics are mine. Pay close attention to the parallel Lord draws to excuse Trump’s false claim of hand-picking Trump U people:
L.N. Smithee (b84cf6) — 6/3/2016 @ 1:14 pmI just re-read the transcript of Anderson Cooper vs. Jeffrey Lord and realized that I missed something YUGE:
BINGO.
Jeffrey Lord — even though he would likely deny he did — blamed angry Trump University customers for believing Trump’s lie about hand-picking “the best” people for their courses, saying they “[had] an obligation as a customer to look into anything you do…”
That’s what I know I have been doing for almost a year now, and fighting people with their hands over their ears singing “La la la la la la la la can’t hear you” every step of the way.
L.N. Smithee (b84cf6) — 6/3/2016 @ 1:25 pmReally?
You think that Japan pays any attention to what somebody on the other side of the world opines about them defending themselves?
I think that Japan, like all other countries, makes their own determination of their own interest and makes their own decision about what to do. I doubt that they pay any heed to what *any* US politician thinks they should do. They are not looking for “permission” from us.
If anything, the last 7 1/2 years has informed every country in the world that they cannot depend on the USA to protect them. All it takes is for the US voters to put the right (wrong?) person as President and the US foreign policy changes in an instant. What rational country is going to depend on the whim of some future unknown person in another country for their own defense?
fred-2 (ce04f3) — 6/3/2016 @ 1:44 pmIn this case, it’s not a lie. Trump did not say he wanted Japan to have anucelear weapon. He said “maybe” And he did the same in debates and other places.
CNN Town Hall, March 29, 2016:
http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2016/03/29/full-rush-transcript-donald-trump-cnn-milwaukee-republican-presidential-town-hall/
Sammy Finkelman (643dcd) — 6/3/2016 @ 2:44 pmBut this is why it matters. And it’s why @7 I said Trump isn’t helping the situation with his stupid, conflicting comments. We still do have a Mutual Assistance and Security Treaty with Japan and Trump could at least start working on repairing the damage Obama’s done and restoring confidence. Countries like Japan and South Korea don’t actually want to have to go it alone, without a strong alliance with the US. But no, Trump just has to engage mouth before thinking and add to the damage.
Of course in this regard we already know Hillary! will be even worse. Why? Because she’s already been worse as SecState, what with her craven, feckless betrayal of South Korea after the sinking of the Cheonan in 2010. She effectively prevented the ROKs from responding with force on their own in retaliation. Instead she claimed the “international community” (a leftist fiction, sort of like there being a two state solution that will turn the M.E. into the land of skittles of beer and solve all the world’s problems) would respond.
And they did in typical UN fashion; with a toothless resolution condemning the attack on that ship without saying who did it. While Kim Jong Il was pinning medals on several of those responsible on NORK TV.
There’s no love lost between Japan and South Korea. As far as the Japanese are concerned if the North and South ever reunify that just means NORK missiles will be down around Pusan. But they know a betrayal when they see it.
Steve57 (e33d44) — 6/4/2016 @ 4:44 amOne could think of the chertyblossom society as the ikwan.
narciso (732bc0) — 6/4/2016 @ 6:29 amYes the Korean joffrey has a big chip on his shoulder, Wendy Sherman has made this region very dangerous.
narciso (732bc0) — 6/4/2016 @ 6:37 amIn the rapper thread, I had a link to torpedo 8.
narciso (732bc0) — 6/4/2016 @ 6:41 am