Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 11 topics

Sunday, April 30, 2017

Fota <contactwellesnet@gmail.com>: Apr 30 02:42PM -0700

About 28, if I'm calculating correctly.
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: Apr 30 06:39PM -0700

On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 7:42:49 AM UTC+10, Fota wrote:
> About 28, if I'm calculating correctly.
 
28.5. The oldest guy in top 30 is Karlovic at 38, amazing for a guy who many says only has a serve and he won more than 8 mil. If the thing stay as they are right now 17 of top 30 will be over 30.
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Apr 30 08:48PM +0200


> Oh you are speaking on Fed's behalf now?
 
> An OG is an OG is an OG (as Chretien used to say).
 
Let's not fool each others.
It's almost as good, but not the same.
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Apr 30 01:11PM -0700

On Sunday, April 30, 2017 at 12:07:51 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
 
> >He has an OG
 
> not that singles one he wanted.
 
> bob
 
I guess Federer will just have to comfort himself with the slam record and weeks @ #1 record! It's a tough job but somebody has to do it!
 
I do agree with you that an OG in doubles isn't the same as an OG in singles but let's not pretend any OG has the same value as any slam win. I think the AO 2017 win was worth more than an endless number of OGs.
TennisGuy <TGuy@techsavvy.com>: Apr 30 09:38PM -0400

On 4/30/2017 4:11 PM, Court_1 wrote:
 
> singles but let's not pretend any OG has the same value as any slam
> win. I think the AO 2017 win was worth more than an endless
> number of OGs.
 
Agreed. But bob likes to pretend... :)
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: Apr 30 06:10PM -0700

On Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 5:01:02 AM UTC-4, *skriptis wrote:

> But on a whole, you get a sense of a player's presence when you
> count all major titles he laid his hands on.
 
Federer has 90 and 50 of those are biggies, thank you.
 
 
> Slams are like 90% of everything. Djokovic and Federer missing
> Olympics or Nadal and Laver not winning YEC is kinda talked
 
18 and counting. May he win more! Olympics are best of three until the final. It's OK if Federer doesn't have a singles OG.
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: May 01 03:27AM +0200


>> But on a whole, you get a sense of a player's presence when you
>> count all major titles he laid his hands on.
 
> Federer has 90 and 50 of those are biggies, thank you.
 
 
No, that's incomparable to past greats.
 
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: Apr 30 06:04PM -0700

On Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 9:18:50 PM UTC-4, Carey wrote:
> Who benefits from this trope?
 
> The dogs don't seem to be eating the dog food. ;)
 
Nadal is 'out of sorts'.
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: Apr 30 06:02PM -0700

On Sunday, April 30, 2017 at 12:07:04 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
 
> >Maybe you should relax your underestimation of his talent!
 
> it's not his talent, it's his age and the fact he had to go through
> peak djokovic, fed and even murray for his slams.
 
I am talking about his talent on clay! He can win one now and possibly next year. His wins on HC have been sparse, not much to do with Djok and co.
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Apr 30 05:58PM -0700

What's funny is Macron's attempt, with the complicity of the MSM and Big Money,
to position himself as an 'outsider'. Let's see: Worked for Rothchilds, attended
the Bilderberg Conference, and was the hapless Hollande's Finance Minister.
 
Sounds like an outsider to me... /s
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Apr 30 12:50PM -0700

On Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 6:04:24 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
 
> that's absolutely right. his FH is far weaker than it used to be. (1)
> many more errors (2) far less topspin.
 
But in the AO final Nadal's fh was excellent. It wasn't as good at IW and Miami.
Federer won the AO because he went for it in the fifth set and had no fear. There is no question that Fed's improved bh and his lack of fear can get the job done vs Nadal(off clay at least.)
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Apr 30 01:03PM -0700

On Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 6:08:25 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:

> i'll get slammed for this again, but fed hasn't "figured out rafa."
 
Yes he has. Improved bh plus lack of fear which paralyzed him in the past.
 

> people to rate fed, djok, murray and rafa's overall level on a 1-100
> scale compared to the best tennis of the past 15 yrs. nope, they all
> know what i've got in store for them once they do.
 
The fact is that off clay if Federer had made the changes to his bh then that he has made today (taking it earlier and not slicing), that would have probably made the difference at Wimbledon 2008 and AO 2009 vs Nadal. Federer also had too much fear when playing Nadal in those days because of all of those clay beatings. Federer is the greater player off clay than Nadal is. It's not rocket science. I'm sure Nadal's mother and Uncle Toni would admit same.
 
Nadal is looking back to close to his best on clay and should win RG this year (so no excuses if Federer comes into RG and somehow miraculously beats this Nadal.)
SliceAndDice <vishalkn@gmail.com>: Apr 30 01:21PM -0700

On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 3:00:29 PM UTC-4, Court_1 wrote:
> But can Federer beat Nadal in best of five at the FO? I'd be astounded if he could do that.
 
Probably not, especially not without the clay practice. But seeing how Nadal is on a tear on his favorite surface should put to rest any of the "Nadal is a shadow of his former self" nonsense. He may not be at his best level but he is definitely not that far off. Federer should be feeling very good about his new game plan that has resulted in 3 victories, two of them pretty resounding, against this Nadal.
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Apr 30 03:43PM -0700

On Sunday, April 30, 2017 at 1:21:56 PM UTC-7, SliceAndDice wrote:
 
> Probably not, especially not without the clay practice. But seeing how Nadal is on a tear on his favorite surface should put to rest any of the "Nadal is a shadow of his former self" nonsense. He may not be at his best level but he is definitely not that far off. Federer should be feeling very good about his new game plan that has resulted in 3 victories, two of them pretty resounding, against this Nadal.
 
 
Good summary. That's how I see it as well.
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Apr 30 04:29PM -0700

> Good summary. That's how I see it as well.
 
Me too but this Roger is playing fear free enjoying himself playing every part of his game and talent. I wouldn't be surprised if he beats Nadal in the FO provided he had 3-4 matches on clay.
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: May 01 02:14AM +0200

> On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 3:00:29 PM UTC-4, Court_1 wrote:
>> But can Federer beat Nadal in best of five at the FO? I'd be astounded if he could do that.
 
> Probably not, especially not without the clay practice. But seeing how Nadal is on a tear on his favorite surface should put to rest any of the "Nadal is a shadow of his former self" nonsense. He may not be at his best level but he is definitely not that far off. Federer should be feeling very good about his new game plan that has resulted in 3 victories, two of them pretty resounding, against this Nadal.
 
There is a difference though. Obviouosy Nadal is improving as we
speak playing on clay.
 
Remember he got crushed by Raonic and Querrey
on hardcourt.
 
 
Plus, imo the most important thing, not playing against Federer
for such a long period made him bit rusty in that big match. He
had patches of stupid play.
 
Whisper is right that these guys crave for tune up practice and
self confidence before big matches.
 
 
 
That's why imo, I don't think Murray and Djokovic would challenge
Nadal at FO. Not enough time for them to raise their games to
very high level that's needed.
 
Only Nadal can harm himself now by overplaying or injuring himself.
 
 
 
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
SliceAndDice <vishalkn@gmail.com>: Apr 30 05:51PM -0700

On Sunday, April 30, 2017 at 8:30:02 PM UTC-4, *skriptis wrote:
 
> > Probably not, especially not without the clay practice. But seeing how Nadal is on a tear on his favorite surface should put to rest any of the "Nadal is a shadow of his former self" nonsense. He may not be at his best level but he is definitely not that far off. Federer should be feeling very good about his new game plan that has resulted in 3 victories, two of them pretty resounding, against this Nadal.
 
> There is a difference though. Obviouosy Nadal is improving as we
> speak playing on clay.
 
Funny how Nadal always miraculously improves on clay. Maybe he just isn't as good on the other surfaces?
 
> Remember he got crushed by Raonic and Querrey
> on hardcourt.
 
He has lost to guys he should not have lost to during his peak as well (only on surfaces other than clay)
 
 
> Plus, imo the most important thing, not playing against Federer
> for such a long period made him bit rusty in that big match. He
> had patches of stupid play.
If anything, I think it was Roger who suffered from rust during that match. It should not have gone 5, he was the better player throughout. He improved as he continued playing tournaments.
 
 
> That's why imo, I don't think Murray and Djokovic would challenge
> Nadal at FO. Not enough time for them to raise their games to
> very high level that's needed.
Djokovic has rope-a-doped before, but yes, at this moment Nadal is the overwhelming favorite.
acoustic@panix.com (lo yeeOn): Apr 30 11:25PM

<oe5re9$oma$1@reader1.panix.com> was cancelled from within trn.
acoustic@panix.com (lo yeeOn): Apr 30 11:19PM

If there is a "crisis" over North Korea, it was precipitated by us a
long time ago.
 
First, we sent troops to the Korean peninsula and fought the Koreans
and pushed the battleground all the way up to the Chinese border.
 
It was one of the first hegemonic acts of the U.S.
 
In response, China under Mao decided to send volunteers and fight
with the Koreans that the US army fought against. It ended with a
truce at the 38th parallel north and the division of Korea.
 
Yet, the US government refused to sign a peace treaty, thus giving
itself an excuse to station US troops in South Korea ad aeternum.
 
There was an opening, in the 1990s, for the much desired unification
of Korea, similar to that of Germany. And there arose the "Sunshine
Policy" in South Korea.
 
The Sunshine Policy was the foreign policy of South Korea towards
North Korea from 1998 to 2008.
 
In the year 1988 the South Korean President at the time chose the
name Sunshine Policy after Aesop's Fable which was about the north
wind and the sun. This was meant to soften North Korea's attitude
towards South Korea. Even though the name came from Aesop's Fable
the idea was based on the traditional Korean ways of dealing with
enemies by giving them gifts to prevent them from causing harm.
 
Even the Scandinavians were working to encourage the reproachment by
giving a Nobel Peace prize to South Korea's Kim Dae-jung.
 
But George W Bush wouldn't let the sun shine over the country. He
actively intervened to make South Korea scrub the policy and declared
North Korea a member of his "axis of evil" in connection of his "War
on Terror" (see his State of the Union speech in 2002).
 
What terrorism has North Korea committed? Washington is long on the
narrative about the Kims being "mad men", starving and torturing his
people, etc, etc. But it's short on evidence.
 
So, Bush nixed the Korean hope of reunification. Then the worthless
Obama, who was so eager to earn his $400,000 per speech retirement
benefit that he further intensified the temperature over the Korean
peninsula.
 
Obama inaugurated his Asian pivot! The act was and is aimed at China
and Russia in the Far East, just as stationing the trooops on the 38th
parallel was aimed at those then-communist countries.
 
Obama further signed a deal to deploy a THAAD system in S Korea, on a
golf course outside of Seoul, ostensibly to protect the Korean people
from attack of the mad man from the north.
 
But of course, not even the South Koreans believe it. It is a system
mainly aimed at China and Russia - and that's why those two countries
are so nervous about it.
 
Again and again, the politicians in Washington and their propaganda
arm are insisting that North Korea has threatened the world. Is it
backed up by facts?
 
A desire to be able to defend yourself and make your home secure is
natural to all living and conscious organisms. Why shouldn't any
living and breathing and thinking creature want to live? Who wants to
be the next Saddam or Qaddafi? Who want to be savagely murdered and
then your executioner be laughing it off before the whole world?
 
And certainly, a "smart cookie" knows that a deterrent is to keep
those who have any idea about doing you in from trying and not to use
it except when your enemy is about to take you out. A deterrent is a
counterpunch device. A smart cookie, especially a small one, does not
counterpunch unless you strike him first. A smart cookie is not the
crazie that his enemies are painting him.
 
Before we first had nukes, we conducted extensive trials. Before we
had ICBMs, we tested and tested their precursors and had many failures
too. Likewise, before Russia (or the Soviet Union before it) and
China had their first workable ones, they also conducted extensive
trial launches. The UK, France, Israel, Pakistan, ..., also did
exactly the same thing. What the UK did to the Solomon Islands is
sacrilegious to Mother Nature in fact.
 
And, except for the United States, no countries who have the nukes
today and the delivery capabilities, have used them. And since having
nukes and nuke-delivery capabilitires are self-defense tools, it makes
no sense to tell a country it must be destroyed for trying to secure
itself from external harm.
 
If France, e.g., is not held to the same standard we are judging North
Korea by, then the standard won't be respected. And that's why it is
causing so much commotion when Washington is moving nuclear submarines
and aircraft carriers to the Korean coast for a possible attack.
 
And that's why the THAAD system is such a provocation to North Korea,
and China and Russia. All these cannot be good news to all three
countries. They are in Washington's cross-hairs and they know it.
 
If North Korea falls, it is not because of a possible refugee crisis
China fears. It is that China will see itself as the next Syria at
the time when Libya was about to fall. It is not in China's own
interest to survive if it listens to John Bolton's mad invitation to
help hasten North Korea's fall. And that's why no sane government
would see kindly what we do if we attack North Korea for simply
testing a nuke or launching an ICBM in order to acquire a deterrent.
 
John Bolton:
"There is a deal here, not based on Pyongyang renouncing its
nuclear program, but on China and America ending the North's threat
by peacefully ending the North.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
What Bolton is saying to China is essentially:
"Here is a knife, you `end' the North or you will be worse off if we
take actions".
 
You know, when Imperial Japan was lording over China in the first half
of the 20th century, it exploded the train that carried the Chinese
general Zhang Zuo-Lin to eliminate him. Why? For not working hard
enough for the Japanese interests in China.
 
Should Beijing not remember the "huanggutun incident" of 1928/06/04?
 
Besides, if there will be a refugee crisis arising from the Korean
peninsula being attacked from the outside, it will be refugees heading
to the south and then very likely from the south to the United States.
 
If we Americans worry about terrorism, this will be it! Attacking NK
will radicalize the Korean people, north and south. We will further
terrorism the same way we did by attacking Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya,
Yemen, and Syria. John Bolton is cynical and crazy. And Israel's
defense minister would do well to call Bolton a "madman" instead of
calling Kim such.
 
In an interview with Hebrew news site Walla this week, [Israeli
Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman stated that North Korea's leader
Kim Jong-un is a "madman" in charge of a "crazy and radical group"
which is "undermining global stability".
 
lo yeeOn
 
------------------------------------------
 
John Bolton: China's choice on North Korea
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/04/28/john-bolton-choice-up-to-china-editorials-debates/101044758/
 
John Bolton 7:18 p.m. ET April 28, 2017
 
Reuniting Korea, essentially by the South peacefully absorbing the
North, is in both of our best interests.
 
Only one non-military alternative now exists: convincing China that
reuniting Korea, essentially by the South peacefully absorbing the
North, is in both of our best interests.
 
China fears that truly applying its enormous economic leverage would
collapse the Pyongyang regime, resulting in millions of refugees
flowing into China, and American troops positioned on the Yalu
River. Washington can assure Beijing that we (and Seoul) also fear
massive refugee flows, and would work with China to stabilize the
North's population as its government disintegrated, and provide
humanitarian assistance. And China can rest assured we don't want
U.S. forces on the Yalu, but instead want them near Pusan, available
for rapid deployment across Asia.
 
In Korea, no pre-emptive strike: Our view
 
There is a deal here, not based on Pyongyang renouncing its nuclear
program, but on China and America ending the North's threat by
peacefully ending the North.
 
Ironically, a pre-emptive U.S. attack would likely have the
consequences Beijing fears: regime collapse, huge refugee flows and
U.S. flags flying along the Yalu River. China can do it the easier way
or the harder way: It's their choice. Time is growing short.
 
John Bolton is a former U.S. ambassador to the U.N.
 
-----
 
US talk about Koreas draws China silence, dispute from Seoul
By christopher bodeen and youkyung lee, associated BEIJING
press Apr 28, 2017, 6:53 AM ET
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/china-confirm-us-claim-pressure-north-korea-47076573
 
U.S. assertions about the Koreas drew silence Friday in Beijing, which
refused to confirm it was turning up pressure on North Korea, and
consternation in Seoul, which dismissed President Donald Trump's claim
that he would get South Korea to renegotiate a trade deal and make it
pay for a missile defense system.
 
. . .
 
In a separate statement, South Korea's defense ministry said there is
no change in its plan under which the U.S. covers the cost for
operating THAAD, now being deployed in the country's southeast. Under
an agreement reached during the administration of Trump's predecessor,
Barack Obama, South Korea offers the land and facilities for THAAD but
not the cost of operations, the Defense Ministry said.
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Apr 30 04:21PM -0700

Obama again? Obama is not the president.
acoustic@panix.com (lo yeeOn): Apr 30 11:23PM

If there is a "crisis" over North Korea, it was precipitated by us a
long time ago.
 
First, we sent troops to the Korean peninsula and fought the Koreans
and pushed the battleground all the way up to the Chinese border.
 
It was one of the first hegemonic acts of the U.S.
 
In response, China under Mao decided to send volunteers and fight
with the Koreans that the US army fought against. It ended with a
truce at the 38th parallel north and the division of Korea.
 
Yet, the US government refused to sign a peace treaty, thus giving
itself an excuse to station US troops in South Korea ad aeternum.
 
There was an opening, in the 1990s, for the much desired unification
of Korea, similar to that of Germany. And there arose the "Sunshine
Policy" in South Korea.
 
The Sunshine Policy was the foreign policy of South Korea towards
North Korea from 1998 to 2008.
 
In the year 1988 the South Korean President at the time chose the
name Sunshine Policy after Aesop's Fable which was about the north
wind and the sun. This was meant to soften North Korea's attitude
towards South Korea. Even though the name came from Aesop's Fable
the idea was based on the traditional Korean ways of dealing with
enemies by giving them gifts to prevent them from causing harm.
 
Even the Scandinavians were working to encourage the reproachment by
giving a Nobel Peace prize to South Korea's Kim Dae-jung.
 
But George W Bush wouldn't let the sun shine over the country. He
actively intervened to make South Korea scrub the policy and declared
North Korea a member of his "axis of evil" in connection of his "War
on Terror" (see his State of the Union speech in 2002).
 
What terrorism has North Korea committed? Washington is long on the
narrative about the Kims being "mad men", starving and torturing his
people, etc, etc. But it's short on evidence.
 
So, Bush nixed the Korean hope of reunification. Then the worthless
Obama, who was so eager to earn his $400,000 per speech retirement
benefit that he further intensified the temperature over the Korean
peninsula.
 
Obama inaugurated his Asian pivot! The act was and is aimed at China
and Russia in the Far East, just as stationing the trooops on the 38th
parallel was aimed at those then-communist countries.
 
Obama further signed a deal to deploy a THAAD system in S Korea, on a
golf course outside of Seoul, ostensibly to protect the Korean people
from attack of the mad man from the north.
 
But of course, not even the South Koreans believe it. It is a system
mainly aimed at China and Russia - and that's why those two countries
are so nervous about it.
 
Again and again, the politicians in Washington and their propaganda
arm are insisting that North Korea has threatened the world. Is it
backed up by facts?
 
A desire to be able to defend yourself and make your home secure is
natural to all living and conscious organisms. Why shouldn't any
living and breathing and thinking creature want to live? Who wants to
be the next Saddam or Qaddafi? Who want to be savagely murdered and
then your executioner be laughing it off before the whole world?
 
And certainly, a "smart cookie" knows that a deterrent is to keep
those who have any idea about doing you in from trying and not to use
it except when your enemy is about to take you out. A deterrent is a
counterpunch device. A smart cookie, especially a small one, does not
counterpunch unless you strike him first. A smart cookie is not the
crazie that his enemies are painting him.
 
Before we first had nukes, we conducted extensive trials. Before we
had ICBMs, we tested and tested their precursors and had many failures
too. Likewise, before Russia (or the Soviet Union before it) and
China had their first workable ones, they also conducted extensive
trial launches. The UK, France, Israel, Pakistan, ..., also did
exactly the same thing. What the UK did to the Solomon Islands is
sacrilegious to Mother Nature in fact.
 
And, except for the United States, no countries who have the nukes
today and the delivery capabilities, have used them. And since having
nukes and nuke-delivery capabilitires are self-defense tools, it makes
no sense to tell a country it must be destroyed for trying to secure
itself from external harm.
 
If France, e.g., is not held to the same standard we are judging North
Korea by, then the standard won't be respected. And that's why it is
causing so much commotion when Washington is moving nuclear submarines
and aircraft carriers to the Korean coast for a possible attack.
 
And that's why the THAAD system is such a provocation to North Korea,
and China and Russia. All these cannot be good news to all three
countries. They are in Washington's cross-hairs and they know it.
 
If North Korea falls, it is not because of a possible refugee crisis
China fears. It is that China will see itself as the next Syria at
the time when Libya was about to fall. It is not in China's own
interest to survive if it listens to John Bolton's mad invitation to
help hasten North Korea's fall. And that's why no sane government
would see kindly what we do if we attack North Korea for simply
testing a nuke or launching an ICBM in order to acquire a deterrent.
 
John Bolton:
"There is a deal here, not based on Pyongyang renouncing its
nuclear program, but on China and America ending the North's threat
by peacefully ending the North.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
What Bolton is saying to China is essentially:
"Here is a knife, you `end' the North or you will be worse off if we
take actions".
 
You know, when Imperial Japan was lording over China in the first half
of the 20th century, it exploded the train that carried the Chinese
general Zhang Zuo-Lin to eliminate him. Why? For not working hard
enough for the Japanese interests in China.
 
Should Beijing not remember the "huanggutun incident" of 1928/06/04?
 
Besides, if there will be a refugee crisis arising from the Korean
peninsula being attacked from the outside, it will be refugees heading
to the south and then very likely from the south to the United States.
 
If we Americans worry about terrorism, this will be it! Attacking NK
will radicalize the Korean people, north and south. We will further
terrorism the same way we did by attacking Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya,
Yemen, and Syria. John Bolton is cynical and crazy. And Israel's
defense minister would do well to call Bolton a "madman" instead of
calling Kim such.
 
In an interview with Hebrew news site Walla this week, [Israeli
Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman stated that North Korea's leader
Kim Jong-un is a "madman" in charge of a "crazy and radical group"
which is "undermining global stability".
 
lo yeeOn
 
------------------------------------------
 
John Bolton: China's choice on North Korea
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/04/28/john-bolton-choice-up-to-china-editorials-debates/101044758/
 
John Bolton 7:18 p.m. ET April 28, 2017
 
Reuniting Korea, essentially by the South peacefully absorbing the
North, is in both of our best interests.
 
Only one non-military alternative now exists: convincing China that
reuniting Korea, essentially by the South peacefully absorbing the
North, is in both of our best interests.
 
China fears that truly applying its enormous economic leverage would
collapse the Pyongyang regime, resulting in millions of refugees
flowing into China, and American troops positioned on the Yalu
River. Washington can assure Beijing that we (and Seoul) also fear
massive refugee flows, and would work with China to stabilize the
North's population as its government disintegrated, and provide
humanitarian assistance. And China can rest assured we don't want
U.S. forces on the Yalu, but instead want them near Pusan, available
for rapid deployment across Asia.
 
In Korea, no pre-emptive strike: Our view
 
There is a deal here, not based on Pyongyang renouncing its nuclear
program, but on China and America ending the North's threat by
peacefully ending the North.
 
Ironically, a pre-emptive U.S. attack would likely have the
consequences Beijing fears: regime collapse, huge refugee flows and
U.S. flags flying along the Yalu River. China can do it the easier way
or the harder way: It's their choice. Time is growing short.
 
John Bolton is a former U.S. ambassador to the U.N.
 
-----
 
US talk about Koreas draws China silence, dispute from Seoul
By christopher bodeen and youkyung lee, associated BEIJING
press Apr 28, 2017, 6:53 AM ET
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/china-confirm-us-claim-pressure-north-korea-47076573
 
U.S. assertions about the Koreas drew silence Friday in Beijing, which
refused to confirm it was turning up pressure on North Korea, and
consternation in Seoul, which dismissed President Donald Trump's claim
that he would get South Korea to renegotiate a trade deal and make it
pay for a missile defense system.
 
. . .
 
In a separate statement, South Korea's defense ministry said there is
no change in its plan under which the U.S. covers the cost for
operating THAAD, now being deployed in the country's southeast. Under
an agreement reached during the administration of Trump's predecessor,
Barack Obama, South Korea offers the land and facilities for THAAD but
not the cost of operations, the Defense Ministry said.
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: Apr 30 04:24PM -0700

Yes. I don't understand why Republinutters can keep bringing up Hillary and Obama who are no longer in the picture.
 
Republicans you are in power now. Act now instead of complaining
grif <griffin_230@hotmail.com>: Apr 30 10:32PM +0100

On 29/04/2017 10:09, *skriptis wrote:
> A mega spectacle tonight. Highest boxing attendance in England ever.
 
That was a helluva fight. Well done Joshua!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4453520/Boxer-Anthony-Joshua-hasn-t-bad-himself.html
Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_lawrence@msn.com>: Apr 30 08:21PM +0100

On 30/04/2017 17:02, bob wrote:
>> dormant while I'm awake. I also see Fox News' Twitter too, among others.
 
> you do realize i'm using CNN as a representative for all the1 sided
> mainstream media you do use, while refusing to hear the opposition.
 
I do realise that I'm wasting my time here, but I can afford to, and it
really matters little to me what goes on in the next 1,360 or so days.
Thankfully he's not my president.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
bmoore@nyx.net: Apr 30 01:14PM -0700

On Sunday, April 30, 2017 at 12:21:31 PM UTC-7, Brian W Lawrence wrote:
 
> I do realise that I'm wasting my time here, but I can afford to, and it
> really matters little to me what goes on in the next 1,360 or so days.
> Thankfully he's not my president.
 
For most of us it won't matter much unless he causes a war or something.
 
BTW, I don't think all news outlets are "the same" as some do here. That's sloppy thinking. And insinuating that people who think Trump is awful are "sheep" is more of the same.
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to rec.sport.tennis+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

0 comments:

Post a Comment