monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

TPM
Almost impossible? Easily won? Well, no one expects him to stop lying, I presume.

As to paid protesters... what else is this dickbrain going to say.

Response moderated: Personal attack. See more info.

Right, Finn. Unconditional surrender are the only acceptable alternative to nuclear annihilation. I trust that, given time, the South Koreans can succeed in civilizing those uncouth savages.

It all makes sense now.

I thought a medical condition might be more positive and hopeful than other alternate explanations.

I read that article and I hadn't thought about the wisdom of asking a 91 year old monarch to trot around in an open carriage during October in London. Also, will they have to increase the number of horses to accommodate Trump's ample frame?? The only President larger was old butterbutt Taft. They might have to strengthen the supports to avoid damage to the wheels. But, I'm sure the British authorities will do what's best for the Queen and any visitor she might have to entertain. Our Aunt Olivia lived to be 96 and lived independently. But as spry as she was, a carriage ride in Fall weather would not have been in her best interest.

Poppycock. Fresh air is good for everyone, even 99 year olds.

You cut the quote off, conveniently....


"It may be laid down as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at a Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency."

LETTER TO ALEXANDER HAMILTON | FRIDAY, MAY 02, 1783

So by rights I should have a military issue automatic weapon and ammo...Hell then I might not squawk so much about paying taxes.

If I wanted any crap out of you, I'd squeeze your head.

Ok, settle down cheese eaters...Don't make me get the hose.

This isn't "relevant contemporary events".

Why can't Americans ever seem to address the point raised?

Me neither and I'm not very confident that the experts in DC understand it as well as I would like them to. We often disagree on the level of expertise among government technocrats though.



Mine too, but at one point their nuclear weaponry was non-existent. Each missile test brings them closer to achieving their goal so, while provocative messaging is certainly involved, there is more to these tests than simple "dick-swinging"



I'm sure that many if not most of them do, but I'm not at all confident that all of them do. As I've indicated previously, I'm not a big supporter of the facile notion that these crazy bastards may be crazy but they are not that crazy, and particularly as the basis of a strategy upon which the lives of millions might depend. Throughout history violent, power-mad men have taken crazy chances that most at the time would have thought to be truly crazy and, in effect, suicidal. Usually they have not paid off for those that took them, but still they took them.

It would seem crazy for Kim to think he can personally survive a nuclear strike on Pyongyang, but would it surprise you to learn that he has installed a network of bunkers deep underground in which he is convinced he could ride out a strike? I don't know if such bunkers exist, but if they do and he is just crazy enough...

In any case the real danger, as I see it, is not that he believes he can survive a nuclear war, but that he is convinced that we are more afraid of one than him. If he should manage to obtain the means to hit the US with a nuke (it's not a guarantee that he will I would prefer the US not bet very heavily on his inability to do so), what will he do then? He's certainly canny enough to know that even if we obliterate his country, it will provide virtually no solace if we have lost a major US city to a nuclear attack. (It's fortunate that it's extremely unlikely, to the point of being just about impossible, that he will ever be in a position to trade cities with us, because we would quit first.) My fear is than in his calculus, our loss, although proportionately a fraction of his (one city vs his entire nation) is feared more and therefore our overwhelmingly superior force is neutralized. If this is the case, he may very well bet that we will sacrifice South Korea and maybe even Japan, rather than risk a mushroom cloud rising over the West Coast or a HEMP weapon destroying half of our grid.

We all think that it is a foregone conclusion that if any nation uses nuclear weapons against an American ally that America will respond with a nuclear strike, but I'm not at all sure that this would be the case if it mean't that we would have to give up one of our cities in so doing. It's not at all beyond my imagination that a US President just might not want to be the leader that allowed Seattle or San Francisco to fry, and while condemning the aggressor with rhetorical fire and brimstone, be more concerned with the lives of millions of Americans than millions of South Koreans or Japanese.

Or maybe it truly is a foregone conclusion but one Kim doesn't buy. If I can imagine an American president refusing to retaliate for a strike on South Korea or Japan, surely he can. If he's wrong, he loses his bet and most likely his life, but we lose an American city. Not such a great win for us.

For the sake of North Koreans, I'd love to learn tomorrow morning that he and all of his lackeys choked to death during some bizarre orgy featuring Disney characters and kimchee burgers, but if he contented himself with ruling the territory in which his family has created a nightmarish reality for his people, I would be reluctantly OK with leaving him to karma.

Neither scenario would be good for the world and therefore not good for the US. Both would have devastating consequences for the global economy and both create a risk of drawing in China or Russia who might see the opportunity challenge our willingness to take on a true nuclear power. Lesser powers like Pakistan or Iran might take the opportunity to launch strikes of their own in the crazy hope that the US will be distracted or unwilling to set off a global nuclear war.

Of course these are worst case scenarios of the sort that show up in novels and movies, but they are plausible even if they are improbable. Once certain forces are set in motion their courses can be entirely unpredictable and extremely difficult to stop.

A member of an old European empire's aristocracy and his wife are assassinated by a 19 year old Serbian anarchist not sane enough to realize he could never personally survive the attack and a world war is set in motion.

The assassin Gavrilo Princip was actually crazy enough not to care if he survived and tried to commit suicide with both an impotent cyanide pill and a gun he seized from one of his jailers. Too young to receive the death penalty he instead was sentenced to the maximum of twenty years in prison (quite the enlightened society from a crime and punishment perspective, no?) where he contracted TB and suffered a lingering and very painful death after three years.

As an interesting point of fact, one of the six member death squad sent by the Serbian secret society, the Black Hand, who was the first to encounter the Archduke's approaching car, balked and took no action. Muhamed Mehmedbasic afterwards explained that he feared he had been seen by a policeman. Apparently he wasn't crazy enough to defy the possible consequences of attempting to kill Franz Ferdinand, but luckily the crazy Princip was next in line ( It all sounds a lot like the plot and characters of a thriller novel or movie, but all true.)

It's not surprising that your contempt for Trump has you equating him with Kim Jong-Un; absurd but not surprising. It's nice, though, that you are unworried by dick-swinging and noise; otherwise you might not be able to devote your full attention to your grand polemical thread. It would be a shame if the drumbeat of war distracted you from your piercing critique of Trump’s guilt by association with Alex Jones, his insincere faith, and general “dickbrain” status. It is interesting though that you perceive the public statements being made by the Chinese government as noise (presumably you don’t think they’ve entered their collective penis into the swinging contest), but I do have to add that while I find your analysis of the situation to be surprisingly facile and even childish, what with all this dick-swinging business, I respect your, seeming, admission that you don’t feel well versed enough on the matter to substantively opine, and you’re not breathlessly warning all that Trump is on the verge of starting WWIII

One last comment on phallus oscillation – With the unexpected, by me, ballistic missile test by NK, Trump was confronted with what your theory about the man and the matter would seem to dictate: a responsive wave that the insecure little boy inside of him couldn’t possible resist and yet resist such an urge is precisely what little Donny did. I genuinely look forward to one of your ever witty one liner explanations.

We certainly do and I, as well, attend to the smart ones.

Careful Finn, some neanderthal might accuse you of sucking up to Europe. All I said was France has great food., and got the 4 stooges riled up.

Unconditional surrender is not required, simply a retreat from his efforts to obtain the capability of delivering nuclear missiles to the US homeland, and further aggressive actions against South Korea.

I've no idea if he believes it or not, but I'm sure that, sad to say for the North Korean people, if he contented himself with keeping his boot on those he currently rules and gave up the grandiose dream of reunifying Korea (the dream from which all this flows) he would be allowed by us, at least, to live as long as his heart and liver will allow.

I say that, but then Gaddafi thought he had cut such a deal. Unfortunately for him he ran into the buzzsaw of a thoroughly unprincipled woman who engaged in what all progressives claim to abhor: Involving the US in a locally contained civil war for personal political gain. HRC needed a notch on her belt for the always planned presidential run in 2016 and was anxious to, figuratively, join the guys in the practice of what blatham affectionately refers to as "dick-swinging."

Nevertheless, he, unlike Gaddafi, inherited nuclear bombs from his dad and by so doing was inoculated against HRC and those like her. Unfortunately he doesn't seem to be content with the immunity the nukes have provided him, and it's somewhat depressing that what happened in Libya was an affirmation for murderous thugs around the world that they can't rely on tacit deals with a nation that changes leaders every four to eight years and through that process of change can give rise to the occasional, unprincipled, and ruthlessly ambitious individual who would command the most powerful nation on earth.

Alas, they seem to have a legitimate reason to believe that to be certain any such individual doesn't use them for entry into the phallus-oscillation club, they must gain entry into the nuclear club.

We do seem, on far too many occasions, to have helped create the monsters we find we need to slay.

Stop pointing fingers, Finn. You are the monsters, the evil monsters who are coming off two illegal invasions. All the crimes that have flowed from those illegal invasions are the sole responsibility of the US/UK and junior monsters.

And now you casually discuss more of your well known evil.

Just the Times actually. It was the first paper called the Times, so no need to mention cities.

I'm not sure I understand the difference. Their possession of nuclear weapons makes them fair game to be targeted with nuclear weapons in my book.



The Morell interview is online now:
http://charlierose.com/videos/30381

In addition to deterrence he is also advocating strengthened missile defense.



Even before having nukes they had a pretty strong deterrent in their ability to shower artillery shells on Seoul.

But the thing with deterrents is, they can only go so far. Deterrence can force us to let a lot of provocations slide, but if we get pushed to the point where we have no choice but to go to war despite that deterrence, then we'll go to war and just take our chances, doing our best to destroy as much of the threat as we can before it can strike us.



There is no way to destroy their nukes with 100% certainty.

But using nuclear weapons gives us better odds than using conventional weapons.

And the more enemy nukes that we destroy on the ground, the easier time our missile defense systems will have blocking the remainder.

NYT