Purgatory: Oops - your Trump presidency discussion thread.

11617192122169

Comments

  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited June 2018
    It's interesting that acting meek and mild and weak are considered terms relating to women when we are also discussing Judge Judy and Judge Jeanine :) No reflection upon you of course PG.

    Judge Jeanine doesn't strike me as a bully so much as batshit crazy. It is unbelievable that someone so clearly deranged could put themselves forward as a potential Attorney General.

    A docco on McCain was on our TV tonight. I am still staggered that he seems to be so loathed by many Americans. He doesn't strike me as a great man, the way Hilary Clinton strikes me as a great woman, but he seemed to have great principles. He is too conservative for me to have ever considered voting for, but he is one on the other side that I admire and respect.

    This show blamed his decision to run with Palin as not only his greatest mistake, but one that led directly to where the Republican party is now: in the thrall of people who are prepared to damage their country to achieve political power. That is, people prepared to pander to racists and religious bigots. I don't think that's right. Certainly the choice of Palin was terrible, awful, but I think it places too much emphasis on top-down influence when what was clearly happening was a change against the will of Republican politicians.

    I wonder where America would be today if John McCain and not George Bush was President when the Twin Towers fell. I know he voted for the war in Iraq, as did Hilary, but I'm not convinced that either would have prosecuted it. I wonder who would have been his Secretary of Defence, and who his Vice President, given that the Republican party was so different in 2000. Newt Gingrich would have been influential perhaps. Anyway, its an interesting exercise I think. I wonder too, whether President McCain would have let the CIA off the leash in the way that George the Smaller did.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    It's America first, folks.

    Trump's actual actions to date seem like more of a Russia First policy.
  • edited June 2018
    I think something more dramatic and historical is required to change the history. Like when Reagan was shot he needed to be dead. He started the economic policies that started the ultra stupid. He's the guy who thought he served in WW2 because he acted in movies, thought the SS are victims, started the cuts to public service and tax breaks to the rich, welfare to corporations, deceit in the aid of patriotism. Oh and abortion. Because it's all about that Jerry.
  • Here's a photo of Turnip at the G6+1 meeting. Offending everyone.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    He's the guy who thought he served in WW2 because he acted in movies, . . .

    While Captain Reagan's stint in the 1st Motion Picture Unit of the Army Signal Corps may not have made him a war hero, or even involved overseas service, he was in the military during the Second World War and served where assigned. Given his relevant skill set I can't say he was mis-assigned.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    It's America first, folks.

    Trump's actual actions to date seem like more of a Russia First policy.
    Fair enough! Retired US Army Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters (an ex-FOX analyst!) said pretty much the same to Anderson Cooper. He said he was convinced that Putin had some hold over Trump.

    (A conservative, he left FOX in disgust because of the real damage he thought it was doing in its propagandist support of Trump).

  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Here's a photo of Turnip at the G6+1 meeting. Offending everyone.
    Oh, how I wish the Caption Competition were still alive!
  • All over the net people have been captioning that picture and having much fun with Photoshop.
    :grin:
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    He's a vain, childish, man. I'm sure he hated having his fortune told by a woman who is so much smarter and wiser than he is. The attack on Trudeau looks like a form of transference. He probably wanted to hit Angela Merkel for puncturing his balloons.

  • Let's name it as it is. Trump´s attack on Trudeau is just another example of his bullying nature. He's a stereotypical bully and needs to be treated as such. You don't fix the problems with a bully by seeking to accommodate or placate them.
  • You go fetch a teacher, or confide in an adult you trust. OK... Lord?
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited June 2018
    I think votes as well as liberal prayer in November Mark :)

    Trump is certainly a bully. Unfortunately for we who have put our faith, hope, trust in the United States for nearly eighty years, and who have spilt the blood of our youth together pursuing our mutual interests, this bully is in charge of the lynchpin power of the West. We can only hang on and hope that sanity will prevail in the Republican party sooner or later, and that the next President is an experienced Politician rather than a wrestler or similar. Really, I can't see any other strategy for us other than to work around Trump, fostering our friendships with other American politicians, professionals and business people while this cyclone of pettiness rages.

    The USA guarantees our security in Australia. Can we be sure that Trump will defend us without some sort of evil quid-pro-quo? We need the whole bloody country on our side, ready to murder him if he reneges on our treaties.

    In the meantime, I saw on the news ticker on the telly (as a story about the conference in Singapore played) an indication that Russia and China have signed an agreement to share nuclear technology.
  • HedgehogHedgehog Shipmate
    Like when Reagan was shot he needed to be dead. He started the economic policies that started the ultra stupid.
    And yet Reagan would be completely opposed to Trump's use of tariffs and trade wars. From one of his final speeches while in office:
    Yet today protectionism is being used by some American politicians as a cheap form of nationalism, a fig leaf for those unwilling to maintain America’s military strength and who lack the resolve to stand up to real enemies . . . Our peaceful trading partners are not our enemies; they are our allies. We should beware of the demagogues who are ready to declare a trade war against our friends — weakening our economy, our national security, and the entire free world — all while cynically waving the American flag.
    A "cheap form of nationalism" from one who "lacks the resolve to stand up to real enemies" (especially when they help get him elected), declaring trade war on friends and allies all while cynically waving the American flag---yep, the Great Communicator clearly is describing the Great Prevaricator.

    Snopes has a longer discussion of Reagan's approach to international economy.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Just received my Time Magazine today The Cover says a lot.
  • romanlionromanlion Shipmate

    Simon Toad wrote: »

    The USA guarantees our security in Australia.

    Ever thought about going your own way? I mean you personally, obviously none of your "leaders" ever have...

    Would you prefer Turnbull be there now?

  • MaramaMarama Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    I think votes as well as liberal prayer in November Mark :)

    Unfortunately for we who have put our faith, hope, trust in the United States for nearly eighty years, and who have spilt the blood of our youth together pursuing our mutual interests, this bully is in charge of the lynchpin power of the West...

    The USA guarantees our security in Australia. Can we be sure that Trump will defend us without some sort of evil quid-pro-quo?

    Well part of the problem is that most of the adventures, certainly since and arguably including Vietnam, have not been to our mutual interest, unless you think creating mayhem around the Middle East is in Australia's (or anyone else's) interest.

    USA guaranteeing our security? I wonder. Only if it suits them, I suspect, and there's nothing new about that. We do have Pine Gap as a bargaining chip I suppose.
  • romanlion wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »

    The USA guarantees our security in Australia.

    Ever thought about going your own way? I mean you personally, obviously none of your "leaders" ever have...

    Would you prefer Turnbull be there now?

    Going our own way is madness. We have a population of about the size of New York in an area about the size of the Continental United States. If Pearl Harbor hadn't been attacked, we were going to be invaded by the Japanese. It was only an American fleet (and the lives of its sailors) that stopped it in the Coral Sea.

    Indonesia has been a basket case since independence, but it has 260 million people and if things go wrong for us up there, we could be in trouble. China is the other massive threat to our security, as is a re-armed Japan. We simply cannot handle those threats without the friendship and assistance of the United States or another hegemonic power which shares our outlook on the world. There is no other such power, so we must work around Trump and limit the damage he causes to an international order in which we flourish.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited June 2018
    Marama wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    I think votes as well as liberal prayer in November Mark :)

    Unfortunately for we who have put our faith, hope, trust in the United States for nearly eighty years, and who have spilt the blood of our youth together pursuing our mutual interests, this bully is in charge of the lynchpin power of the West...

    The USA guarantees our security in Australia. Can we be sure that Trump will defend us without some sort of evil quid-pro-quo?

    Well part of the problem is that most of the adventures, certainly since and arguably including Vietnam, have not been to our mutual interest, unless you think creating mayhem around the Middle East is in Australia's (or anyone else's) interest.

    USA guaranteeing our security? I wonder. Only if it suits them, I suspect, and there's nothing new about that. We do have Pine Gap as a bargaining chip I suppose.

    Exactly, we want as many US assets based here as we can get. COME TO DARWIN LADS AND LASSES! Base your huge warships here! Build a supply base, airbases, spy bases, rendition bases (but keep them on the QT please) whatever they need and more.

    On Vietnam, Australia's leaders were enthusiastic supporters of military intervention. They shared the same view as US leaders that it was necessary to stop the spread of Communism in Vietnam, or we risked losing Malaysia and Indonesia to the Communists. One of my girlfriend's fathers fought in the aftermath of the Malayan Emergency against the Communists, and she was born at our old base there, Butterworth. You have no doubt seen the film "The Year of Living Dangerously" portraying the lead up to the coup against Indonesian President Sukarno and the elimination of the communists and suspected communists there in 1965. By elimination I mean mass-murder I think... The protracted fight against the communists in south-east asia was no doubt the primary consideration for both US and Australian leaders when considering how to deal with the ongoing situation in Vietnam. To look back on the war and say 'this was not in our interests' is a piece of piss, but trying to get yourself into the heads of our cold-war leaders and saying the same thing without knowing the outcome is not so easy.

    The war in Afghanistan to oust the Taliban was clearly warranted. I'm happy to argue it out, but is that necessary? That wasn't Bush's mistake.

    Bush's mistake was Iraq, and John Howard, our Prime Minister at the time, not only supported him in it, but actively lobbied for it. The reasons why it was a mistake are legion, many crystal clear at the time. Again, I'm happy to argue it out, but the real shit, apart from the WMD bullshit, was that it took resources and attention away from the region that needed focus at that time - Afghanistan and Pakistan. The only reason why going into Iraq was in Australia's interests was to support the United States at the time when it needed that support. That's reason enough, given our strategic vulnerability. I'm pretty sure that Howard would have had that reason in his mind, but also he was in Washington when the Pentagon was attacked. He already liked Bush and politically they are similar, and I think they kind of rusted on to each other in the days following 9/11. I think Howard would go anywhere and do anything for the Americans, and I think that's the same for every one of our post-war Prime Ministers, with the possible exception of Gough Whitlam.
  • On another front, I hear that Trump has invited Kim Jon Un, Robert Mugabe and Idi Amin to the next meeting of the G7
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate, Glory
    Joking or serious, Simon Toad? Given the current situation, could be either.

    Though, surely, Idi Amin is long dead? Not sure about Mugabe.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    Arresting photographs and video clips apart, I'm not sure the Singapore meeting has accomplished much for the USA. The joint statement is primarily aspirational. Kim Jong Un will go back happy with the overt recognition, the Donald will go back happy with the pretty pix and no doubt enhanced self belief in himself as a deal maker, Pompeo and US officials will go back happy that for once Trump stuck to the script.

    I hope officials are able to make something of it, maybe get some practical de-escalation. But I wouldn't put a lot of money on that. Both Trump and Kim remain volatile, unpredictable.

    And on the other tack, officials are going to have to work very hard to repair the G7 shambles. Making friends with old enemies and enemies out of old friends is a strange foreign policy.

  • Golden Key wrote: »
    Joking or serious, Simon Toad? Given the current situation, could be either.

    Though, surely, Idi Amin is long dead? Not sure about Mugabe.

    yeah, a joke on him wanting Putin back. Mugabe died last year I think...
  • No, Mugabe is still alive, but ceased to be President of Zimbabwe last November.

    POTUS may not know that, of course.

    IJ
  • Oh! Last time I take short cuts on a google search!!
  • Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Arresting photographs and video clips apart, I'm not sure the Singapore meeting has accomplished much for the USA. The joint statement is primarily aspirational. Kim Jong Un will go back happy with the overt recognition, the Donald will go back happy with the pretty pix and no doubt enhanced self belief in himself as a deal maker, Pompeo and US officials will go back happy that for once Trump stuck to the script.

    I hope officials are able to make something of it, maybe get some practical de-escalation. But I wouldn't put a lot of money on that. Both Trump and Kim remain volatile, unpredictable.

    And on the other tack, officials are going to have to work very hard to repair the G7 shambles. Making friends with old enemies and enemies out of old friends is a strange foreign policy.

    Former US ambassador to Russia Michael McFall has tweeted
    How can Trump establish an excellent relationship with a North Korean dictator in 45 minutes, but can't establish working relationships with our longstanding democratic allies after 18 months?

    As for sticking to the script, the commitment to end military exercises on the Korean peninsula (labeling them as "provocative") doesn't seem to have been previously agreed with the US military...
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    As for sticking to the script, the commitment to end military exercises on the Korean peninsula (labeling them as "provocative") doesn't seem to have been previously agreed with the US military...

    Or the South Koreans, for that matter.

    Full text of the Trump-Kim joint communiqué.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    On another front, I hear that Trump has invited Kim Jon Un, Robert Mugabe and Idi Amin to the next meeting of the G7

    Is it true that Kim Jong-un offered to mediate re Canada's trade deficit with the USA, and the special place in hell Kim's new friends want to send PM Justin Trudeau to?
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    No, Mugabe is still alive, but ceased to be President of Zimbabwe last November.
    The WhatsApp group with my Zimbabwean friends was very nice that day.

  • jay_emmjay_emm Shipmate
    As for sticking to the script, the commitment to end military exercises on the Korean peninsula (labeling them as "provocative") doesn't seem to have been previously agreed with the US military...
    End does seem a bit of a concession.

    Moving them away a bit seems an idea offering that costs the US&S Korea little. Takes away the provocation without the good defensive points to the exercise (although it does take away the ability to pull a pearl harbour or artificially make Kim's regime worse than it is). It's slightly good for NK (but also removes it's excuse).
    Matching that with the bomb testing stop (which costs NK nothing, it's not like they can test every bomb they make) seems an ideal safe tangible (if actually meaningless) step in the right direction.

    Pausing entirely, I can't really see what NK could give away in return safely.
  • HedgehogHedgehog Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Full text of the Trump-Kim joint communiqué.

    So the upshot is:
    1.The United States and the DPRK commit to establish new US-DPRK relations in accordance with the desire of the peoples of the two countries for peace and prosperity.
    A virtually meaningless statement and certainly doesn't obligate either aside to actually do anything. As has been noted, there is nothing about any denuclearization by North Korea being either verifiable or irreversible--which was suppose to be deal breakers for the U.S. (until its negotiator's knees buckled).
    2.The United States and DPRK will join their efforts to build a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula.
    Ambiguous: could be read that the U.S. and North Korea have agreed to overthrow the government in South Korea and put it all under Kim's control. That would bring peace to the peninsula.
    3.Reaffirming the April 27, 2018 Panmunjom Declaration, the DPRK commits to work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula
    So Kim agreed to what he already agreed to. Not exactly a major achievement.
    4.The United States and the DPRK commit to recovering POW/MIA remains, including the immediate repatriation of those already identified.
    Okay, that is something that the U.S. actually got out of this meeting. In exchange, North Korea has gained credibility as a world power and got the U.S. President to refer to the U.S.'s own war games as "provocative" along with a commitment to stop them.

    Nope. Can't say that I am all that impressed by Trump's alleged deal-making skills. He got played.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Hedgehog wrote: »
    3.Reaffirming the April 27, 2018 Panmunjom Declaration, the DPRK commits to work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula
    So Kim agreed to what he already agreed to. Not exactly a major achievement.

    "[C]ommits to work towards" isn't exactly an enthusiastic commitment to anything. As I've previously noted the phrase "denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula" does not mean the same thing to North Korea that it means to everyone else. The North Korean understanding of "denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula" includes the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from the peninsula and possibly even U.S. guarantees of nuclear protection to South Korea.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    As for sticking to the script, the commitment to end military exercises on the Korean peninsula (labeling them as "provocative") doesn't seem to have been previously agreed with the US military...

    Or the South Koreans, for that matter.

    Well, Moon Jae-in had previously served in the administration of Roh Moo-hyun, a president who came to power partly by dog-whistling to the anti-American left in the 2002 election(all the while having no intention of even so much as asking the Americans to leave; see Andreas Papandreous for the template there). So if he now finds himself caught off-guard by possible American disengagement, it might be a little like the 16 year old who demands more freedom from his parents, and then is shocked when they start packing his suitcase.

    That said, Moon's current party is to the right of his old boss', and I don't know how much they pander to anti-Americanism(they are generally considered dovish on North Korea). One thing to possibly keep in mind is that the ROK is holdng local elections in a few hours, and while the summit is generally being regarded as a success for Moon, he might not want people going to the polls with the definitive idea that the joint exercises have been cancelled.

  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    I have to say, it is rather amusing to see Trump being denounced on this issue by liberals, in language typically associated with Republicans denouncing the likes of George McGovern.

    This is from CBC, the Canadian public broadcaster, normally with an ideological bent something like BBC or NPR...

    https://tinyurl.com/y8scmj6k
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited June 2018
    Hedgehog wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Full text of the Trump-Kim joint communiqué.

    Nope. Can't say that I am all that impressed by Trump's alleged deal-making skills. He got played.

    That pretty much says it all, at least looking from this side of the pond. Mr. Kim is a cool operator, I suspect...

    Meanwhile, POTUS continues to p**s off the USA's allies over here. What a silly man he is.
    :grimace:

    IJ

  • Hedgehog wrote: »
    Can't say that I am all that impressed by Trump's alleged deal-making skills. He got played.

    Yup. Cut through all the baloney and what you have left is that NK have offered almost nothing and in return Trump has sold out the South Koreans. In addition, Kim gets to look big on the world stage.

  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    tangent/

    I got an interesting take on Korea over the weekend from a leading liberal theologian here whose wife is South Korean.

    His analysis (in ascending order of importance to him!) was:

    1: Russia and China watch nervously as NK/SK eye reunification, which would make Korea major regional power, possibly within the US ambit.

    2. South Korean Christians have been praying 24 hours non stop for reunification of Korea for the past ten years.

    3. In a reproof to western democracies, South Korea actually ousted a corrupt president who was wholly under the influence of a pagan shaman. The new man is a devout catholic committed to working for peace.

    /tangent
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited June 2018
    I am inclined to wait and see on this one, giving Trump the batsman's benefit of the doubt on whether he was caught Leg Before Wicket and allowing him to bat on.

    I think the Korean Military Exercises generally take place in the northern summer, and then things fire up with missile testing from the North. Trump extended the missile testing season last year with his belligerence. Trump has probably given up military exercises for this year, but I wonder whether he has saved much money, given that planning and the associated accumulation of armaments has probably already taken place. I think that's acceptable as a gesture of goodwill. He also verbally dangled the carrot of withdrawing US troops from the Korean peninsula. I think that was a good move in an ongoing negotiation, and I understand that this is what is happening.

    Trump, for reasons no doubt related to his own character has put the cart before the horse by meeting with Kim early in the process. No doubt the details of the commitments given by North Korea will be hammered out by Pompeo and the remains of the State Department over the coming months. I have never known experienced political operators like Mike Pompeo, for all his faults, to be anything other than rigorous in pursuing the interests of the United States and its allies. Overzealous is more often the criticism.

    For all its faults, and for all the faults of the protagonists, this is a step towards peace. Korea deserves peace. I want peace, and I want it more than I hate Trump. I hate Trump.

    p.s. We have plenty of room for those troops in Korea if they are withdrawn.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    1: Russia and China watch nervously as NK/SK eye reunification, which would make Korea major regional power, possibly within the US ambit.

    China particularly is a big fan of the status quo. They don't like the idea of North Korea collapsing and leaving them with a nuclear armed failed state and refugee crisis just across the Yalu River. They also don't fancy sharing a border with a Korea reunified under the leadership of the South Korean government. They might find a Korea reunified under the Kim regime acceptable, but I'm not sure that's a realistic option.
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Trump, for reasons no doubt related to his own character has put the cart before the horse by meeting with Kim early in the process.

    I guess that's one euphemism for "making several concessions while getting nothing in return". Kim gets the massive propaganda boost that North Korea has been looking for since his dad was running the country and gets the U.S. to capitulate on joint exercises with the South Koreans (without telling the South Koreans in advance, which has to be the icing on the cake from Kim's perspective). Given how effective they've been in prying free concession out the U.S., exactly what is Kim's motive to give up his nukes?
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote:

    3. In a reproof to western democracies, South Korea actually ousted a corrupt president who was wholly under the influence of a pagan shaman. The new man is a devout catholic committed to working for peace.

    I'm wondering what significance your friend sees in the pagan/Catholic divide. I believe that about half of the Korean population answers "no religion" on the census, so they might not have any strong preference one way or another, as far as a politicans' religion goes.

    The Choi Soon-sil cult WAS rooted in shamanism, but I think it was more the "cultic" aspects that bothered people. I don't think people would look askance at a politician going to a shaman or fortune-teller for advice on what to name their baby(for example), but the degree of graft and nepotism that Choi, Park and company were involved in is another matter altogether.

    That said, it is true that all the left-wing presidents since the fall of the dictators have been Roman Catholic. I'm not sure if there's any pattern to be gleaned there, or if it's just a coincidence.
  • Croesus wrote:
    Given how effective they've been in prying free concession out the U.S., exactly what is Kim's motive to give up his nukes?

    The military exercises can be reinstated pretty quickly, within a year. The danger from the West's perspective is that both China and Russia are relaxing sanctions, at least I heard that on the telly. They will be harder for us to reinstate, and I imagine that it is Chinese pressure that has bought about this thaw in relations.

    What a win it would be for the Chinese to get US troops out of Sth Korea! I reckon they are willing to trade Kim's nukes for that kind of a result, and I reckon Kim is taking orders from them.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    trump care about human rights? No chance!
  • Our Soccer team is currently in Russia, our business people do business in China. We let the Chinese buy our stuff and invest in our country. Vietnam, Cambodia, Burma, yadda yadda yadda... I don't think Trump is on his Pat Malone.
  • TheOrganistTheOrganist Shipmate
    edited June 2018
    I think Trump has been played, and very successfully, by Kim.

    I loved the way that Kim went through his interpreter all the time: having attended international school in Switzerland for 8 years he speaks fluent English - probably rather more fluent than DT in fact - so he will have got every nuance of DT's posturing and mangled statements, while using the interpreter gained him valuable time to formulate anodyne responses.

    I laughed out loud when DT let the mask slip during his rambling press conference, going on about "budeiful beaches" and conjecturing about building "great condos" in North Korea.

    So, Trump will return to the White House having shown the world that he remains a 2nd rate real-estate man while Kim goes back to Pyongang boosted in the eyes of his down-trodden populace as having been accorded equal status with the POTUS.

    Great result, Donald :wink:
  • On Human Rights, I forgot to mention the separation of kids from their parents at the US border with Mexico, and of course Australia's imprisonment of people seeking asylum on pacific islands for the crime of choosing the wrong form of transport. Those poor bastards have been kept on Nauru and Manus for about 5 years without trial. Of course they can always return to the places from which they fled, or choose a new life in Cambodia. Peachy.

    Of course North korea is one of the most egregious abusers of human rights, but we Australians are some of its most hypocritical proponents.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    What a win it would be for the Chinese to get US troops out of Sth Korea! I reckon they are willing to trade Kim's nukes for that kind of a result, and I reckon Kim is taking orders from them.

    I'm pretty sure you reckon incorrectly on that count. If North Korea was willing to take orders from China they wouldn't have nuclear weapons or ICBMs in the first place. As I said earlier, China really likes the current Korean status quo compared to any likely alternatives. North Korea having an effective nuclear deterrent against the United States (the first country to develop one since China itself, coincidentally enough) is hugely destabilizing to that status quo, which is why China was more willing than usual to go along with sanctions this time.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited June 2018
    More stuff from Canada's public broadcaster, portraying Donald Trump as a dirty hippie/Neville Chamberlain selling out the free world to the commies.

    As someone who grew up watching CBC news documentaries often slanted toward criticism of US warmongering, I can't help wondering if these attacks from the other side of the spectrum might actually be proxy volleys in the emerging trade war.


  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    You mean it might be retaliation propaganda by the regime of the cruelest monster currently heading a nation, Justin Trudeau? Say it ain't so! :wink:
  • stetson wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote:

    3. In a reproof to western democracies, South Korea actually ousted a corrupt president who was wholly under the influence of a pagan shaman. The new man is a devout catholic committed to working for peace.

    I'm wondering what significance your friend sees in the pagan/Catholic divide. I believe that about half of the Korean population answers "no religion" on the census, so they might not have any strong preference one way or another, as far as a politicans' religion goes.

    I assumed that Eutychus's friend means that God is literally rewarding the South Koreans for their electoral decision.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited June 2018
    delete



This discussion has been closed.