Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 7 topics

Wednesday, August 9, 2017

bob <bob@nospam.net>: Aug 09 06:29PM -0400

On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 11:07:18 +0100, Brian W Lawrence
 
>> i know. i'm about to give up on bryan.
 
>Why haven't you before?
 
>How will I know when you do?
 
ask john liang.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Aug 09 06:27PM -0400

On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 13:03:52 +0300, Pelle Svanslös <pelle@svans.los>
wrote:
 
 
>In the meantime, Assad is continuing with the ethnic clensing under the
>Russian umbrella which
>1) keeps the refugees coming
 
i read that many of the refugees have returned and it's slowing down.
you have to stop reading the fake news pelle.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Aug 09 06:24PM -0400

On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 01:42:00 -0700 (PDT), joh <joshorst@gmail.com>
wrote:
 
 
>> --
>I don't think there'll be another opportunity to vote for Trump.
>Or are you suggesting small dick Donald is still busy trying to win the popular vote in the latest elections?
 
calling him "small dick donald" just exemplifies your own
insecurities.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Aug 09 06:25PM -0400

>> take diversity training in europe?
 
>> bob
 
>Diversity training? What the hell is that?
 
geez, and you call yourself educated? you must be german.
 
bob
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Aug 10 01:26AM +0300

bob kirjoitti 10.8.2017 klo 1:24:
 
> calling him "small dick donald" just exemplifies your own
> insecurities.
 
> bob
 
Yeah, Trump said he has no problem down there. Then again what he says
is mostly not true so...
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: Aug 09 11:56PM +0300

Most nonproliferation experts — as well as former President Jimmy Carter
and a number of former Pentagon and State Department officials, both
Republican and Democrat — agree that the brutal and murderous Kim, for
all his bluster, is not irrational or suicidal, but bent on preserving
his regime and preventing a U.S. attack. Nuclear weapons are a
defensive, not an offensive, tool for the North Korean leadership —
which, as Bill Clinton's defense secretary William Perry observed on Fox
News in April, may be "ruthless and … reckless" but "they are not crazy."
 
Got that? Kim is bad, not mad.
 
The same cannot be said of The Donald. Think I'm being unfair? In
February, a group of psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers
wrote to the New York Times "that the grave emotional instability
indicated by Mr. Trump's speech and actions makes him incapable of
serving safely as president." In April, another group of mental health
experts told a conference at Yale University's School of Medicine that
Trump was "paranoid" and "delusional" and referred to the president's
"dangerous mental illness."
 
Is it any wonder then that so many recent reports suggest that South
Koreans are more worried about Trump than they are about the threat
posed by their hostile and paranoid neighbor?
 
Trump has form, though, when it comes to loose talk about nukes. During
the presidential campaign, in August 2016, MSNBC host and ex-Republican
congressman Joe Scarborough revealed that Trump, over the course of an
hour-long briefing with a senior foreign policy adviser, had asked three
times about the use of nuclear weapons. At one point during the meeting,
according to Scarborough, the then-GOP presidential candidate asked his
adviser, "If we had them, why can't we use them?"
 
To be so blasé, enthusiastic even, about the deployment of the ultimate
weapon of mass destruction is a stark indicator of Trump's childishness,
ignorance, belligerence, and, yes, derangement.
 
Listen to McCain's fellow Republican super-hawk Senator Lindsay Graham.
"If there's going to be a war to stop [Kim], it will be over there,"
Graham told NBC's Matt Lauer last week, recounting a recent conversation
he had with the president. "If thousands die, they're going to die over
there. They're not going to die over here — and he's told me that to my
face."
 
"This is madness," Kingston Reif, a nuclear disarmament specialist the
Arms Control Association, tweeted in response to Graham's re-telling of
Trump's remarks. "Unhinged madness."
 
https://theintercept.com/2017/08/09/the-madman-with-nuclear-weapons-is-donald-trump-not-kim-jong-un/
calimero377@gmx.de: Aug 09 02:09PM -0700

On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 10:56:13 PM UTC+2, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> Arms Control Association, tweeted in response to Graham's re-telling of
> Trump's remarks. "Unhinged madness."
 
> https://theintercept.com/2017/08/09/the-madman-with-nuclear-weapons-is-donald-trump-not-kim-jong-un/
 
 
Your hate for the orange clown is carrying you too far. Kim is a madman. He gives a shit for his citizen, absolutely shit. Which is a difference to the Soviets back in the day or to Putin or the Chinese.
Today Kim most certainly is not able to reach the USA with nukes. In a few years he will.
 
Yes, in case of war South Korea will suffer terribly. And probably Japan. But every American president has to look for his countrymen first. And therefore never can't accept a madman's nuclear ICBMs threatening the mainland.
 
There is a huge probability that Trump and his generals will do what probably is the only option - attack North Korea with their whole arsenal.
 
 
Max
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: Aug 09 02:11PM -0700

And what is reason for this nuclear war? Paranoia?
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Aug 09 11:17PM +0200


> https://theintercept.com/2017/08/09/the-madman-with-nuclear-weapons-is-donald-trump-not-kim-jong-un/
 
Extremely stupid text. I don't know even where to begin with?
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Aug 10 12:26AM +0300

Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti 9.8.2017 klo 23:56:
> the Arms Control Association, tweeted in response to Graham's
> re-telling of Trump's remarks. "Unhinged madness."
 
> https://theintercept.com/2017/08/09/the-madman-with-nuclear-weapons-is-donald-trump-not-kim-jong-un/
 
Nothing to fear...
 
North Korea foreign minister said that the nukes are only for USA, other
countries are safe. Phew.
 
So at worst we have Guam, South Korea and California nuked, while North
Korea becomes molten glass. Not that bad really.
 
California could be safe for now though, since it's unclear whether NK
has miniaturized nuclear weapons yet to fit the rockets. The bureau
which claimed they have, said the same few years ago already and was
wrong according to all other sources.
 
Sounds to me that they don't have capability to hit mainland USA yet...
why else threaten Guam...
 
Hard to see any US first strike as serious tactic either. NK has moving
platforms with nukes and 25 million people, not to mention the fall out
to neighbouring countries. But if US is to do something about this they
better act fast, although it seems it's already too late.
 
Chilling post.
calimero377@gmx.de: Aug 09 02:28PM -0700

On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 11:11:19 PM UTC+2, soccerfan777 wrote:
> And what is reason for this nuclear war? Paranoia?
 
And what if, say, Kim gets diagnosed with cancer in 2020 and then suddenly feels insulted by a Hollywood movie?
You think he wouldn't decide to go down in a "blaze of glory" by attacking "the imperialists"? Sure? 100 % sure? Or maybe only 90 % sure? 80?
 
Remember Neville Chamberlain back in 1938?
 
 
Max
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Aug 10 12:48AM +0300

TT kirjoitti 10.8.2017 klo 0:26:
> countries are safe. Phew.
 
> So at worst we have Guam, South Korea and California nuked, while North
> Korea becomes molten glass. Not that bad really.
 
In fact it could be a good thing!
 
-At least we'd get rid of terrible South Korean drama films.
-The life in North Korea is so miserable that USA would be doing them a
service by killing them
-Nobody cares about Guam
-Get rid of California and Republicans would rule USA, good for Trump.
 
I'm a bit worried about North Korean tigers though, although there's
probably no more than 10-20 left, if any. Even the poor animals have
nothing left to eat there (this is true).
 
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Aug 09 11:49PM +0200

> And what is reason for this nuclear war? Paranoia?
 
Preemptive wars. Global domination.
Take a guess why max likes it and advocates it.
 
 
I feel Trump personally doesn't give a shit about Kim, but, like
any president, he's under public pressure from Grachus types who
are genuinely scared of north Korea, due to media brainwashing.
Remember him posting here being terrified with north Korean
missiles.
 
It's getting boring actually. Trump should either really nuke them
and be done with it, or make a lasting peace, which is I'm sure
he wants.
 
But we all know they try to obstruct him in every way. It would be
same to Russia story.
 
So peace is unlikely and war even more, America has suffered so
much bad PR wirh these invasions in recent decades.
 
I say UN should give a mandate to Pakistan and India to take care
of north Korea. Who ever defeats north Koreans sooner, gets whole
Kashmir. That should motivate both.
 
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
joh <joshorst@gmail.com>: Aug 09 02:50PM -0700


> And what if, say, Kim gets diagnosed with cancer in 2020 and then suddenly feels insulted by a Hollywood movie?
> You think he wouldn't decide to go down in a "blaze of glory" by attacking "the imperialists"? Sure? 100 % sure? Or maybe only 90 % sure? 80?
 
> Remember Neville Chamberlain back in 1938?
 
Yeah, better blow Germany to oblivion, better save than sorry.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Aug 09 06:16PM -0400

>countries are safe. Phew.
 
>So at worst we have Guam, South Korea and California nuked, while North
>Korea becomes molten glass. Not that bad really.
 
:-( i've become rather fond of samsung's tvs and phones.
 
>to neighbouring countries. But if US is to do something about this they
>better act fast, although it seems it's already too late.
>Chilling post.
 
not sure the usa needs to fight nukes with nukes. can possibly take
out their nuclear capability with conventional bombs.
 
bob
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Aug 10 01:23AM +0300

bob kirjoitti 10.8.2017 klo 1:16:
> not sure the usa needs to fight nukes with nukes. can possibly take
> out their nuclear capability with conventional bombs.
 
Probably. Although when I wrote 'it's probably too late already' - I
almost added 'and has always been'.
 
North Korea can of course do some terrible devastation to South Korea
(US ally) with traditional and chemical weapons as well.
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Aug 10 12:25AM +0200

>>Chilling post.
 
> not sure the usa needs to fight nukes with nukes. can possibly take
> out their nuclear capability with conventional bombs.
 
 
 
That's kinda gay and disrespectful.
 
What would you like to use vs Kim, the epitome of mad evil who's
developing his own nukes, looks cool, and is the only fatty in a
country full of starved and lean people, including his
generals?
 
Even the most powerful conventional bomb, MOAB was used against
some mountain bearded jihadists. It simply doesn't feel grand
enough to use that vs guy like Kim.
 
 

 
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Aug 09 06:22PM -0400

On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 11:36:26 +0100, Brian W Lawrence
 
>Making a statement with arms folded says so much more than the words.
 
>The words, defensive, nervous, uncertain, are often used to describe
>that posture.
 
as opposed to obama's "line in the sand"?
 
anyway, trump should let them all think he's a little bit crazy and
liable to do anything.
 
bob
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Aug 09 11:12PM +0300

*skriptis kirjoitti 9.8.2017 klo 20:05:
 
> Polonium is for the espionage guys.
> Have you watched James Bond? 007?
> 00 means license to kill.
 
*facepalm*
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Aug 09 06:17PM -0400

On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 16:04:15 +0100, Brian W Lawrence
 
><https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fbi-agents-searched-former-trump-143943426.html>
 
they raided it 3 weeks ago.
 
bob
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: Aug 10 12:08AM +0300

Throughout the 2016 campaign, many people opposed to Donald Trump's
candidacy were nonetheless reluctant to endorse Hillary Clinton, in part
because of her relative hawkishness. Candidate Trump had a decades-long
career in the public eye that demonstrated plenty of reason to worry he
would be a disastrous president, but he lacked the long career in public
service that fueled worries about Clinton's approach to the use of
force, and her alleged desire to expand executive war-making powers past
what she inherited from her predecessor.
 
Six months into Trump's presidency, we now have enough data to assess
his own approach. The results are clear: Judging from Trump's embrace of
the use of air power — the signature tactic of U.S. military
intervention — he is the most hawkish president in modern history. Under
Trump, the United States has dropped about 20,650 bombs through July 31,
or 80 percent the number dropped under Obama for the entirety of 2016.
At this rate, Trump will exceed Obama's last-year total by Labor Day.
 
In Iraq and Syria, data shows that the United States is dropping bombs
at unprecedented levels. In July, the coalition to defeat the Islamic
State (read: the United States) dropped 4,313 bombs, 77 percent more
than it dropped last July. In June, the number was 4,848 — 1,600 more
bombs than were dropped in any one month under President Barack Obama
since the anti-ISIS campaign started three years ago.
 
In Afghanistan, the number of weapons released has also shot up since
Trump took office. April saw more bombs dropped in the country since the
height of Obama's troop surge in 2012. That was also the month that the
United States bombed Afghanistan's Mamand Valley with the largest
non-nuclear bomb ever dropped in combat.In Iraq and Syria, data shows
that the United States is dropping bombs at unprecedented levels. In
July, the coalition to defeat the Islamic State (read: the United
States) dropped 4,313 bombs, 77 percent more than it dropped last July.
In June, the number was 4,848 — 1,600 more bombs than were dropped in
any one month under President Barack Obama since the anti-ISIS campaign
started three years ago.
 
Trump has also escalated U.S. military involvement in non-battlefield
settings — namely Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan. In the last 193 days of
the Obama presidency, there were 21 lethal counterterrorism operations
across these three countries. Trump has quintupled that number,
conducting at least 92 such operations in Yemen, seven in Somalia, and
four in Pakistan.
 
Hand in hand with Trump's enthusiasm for air power comes a
 
demonstrated tolerance for civilian casualties.
 
Increased air power in Iraq and Syria has resulted in
 
unprecedented levels of civilian deaths.
 
Even by the military's own count, civilian casualties have soared since
Trump took office, though independent monitors tally the deaths as many
as ten times higher. In Afghanistan, Trump's tolerance for killing
civilians has led to 67 percent more civilian casualties in his first
six months than in the first half of 2016, according to the United Nations.
 
The expansion of air power and acceptance of civilian harm are together
a problem, but they are made worse by the fact that they are occurring
 
without any diplomatic strategy to wind down the wars.
 
The counter-Islamic State strategy review that Trump ordered in January
has twice missed deadlines the president set for himself and remains
incomplete. Secretary of Defense James Mattis promised Sen. John McCain
(R-Ariz.) that he would have a strategy for the war in Afghanistan by
mid-July, yet that review is still ongoing. Even while Mattis has called
for a diplomatic solution to the conflict in Yemen, the approach is
incoherent with Trump's doubling-down on airstrikes and support for the
Saudi-led coalition conducting its own indiscriminate bombing campaign.
 
The connection between increased air power and a reduction in
hostilities is made even more tenuous by the gutting of the State
Department, which Trump has proposed cutting funding by around 30
percent and for which dozens of critical senior posts remain vacant.
Without the expertise and resources of a fully staffed diplomatic corps,
it's implausible that there will ever be a U.S.-led or U.S.-supported
negotiated political settlement between combatants. In the absence of
any coordinated approach to ending these conflicts, Trump is resorting
to the default tactic that policymakers have become addicted to over the
past nine years: low-cost, low-risk (to U.S. service members) standoff
strikes. Under Trump, that military addiction has deepened, demonstrably so.
 
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/09/donald-trump-is-dropping-bombs-at-unprecedented-levels/
 
So much for the peace dividend bob was hoping for. bob wanted US
involvement in the ME conflicts to end, not happening. And the moneys
that spent on arms to be put in education and healthcare. Isn't
happening. Betsy DeVos is a neutron bomb to public schooling in ther US
and military spending just keeps rising.
 
Poor bob.
calimero377@gmx.de: Aug 09 02:13PM -0700

On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 11:08:50 PM UTC+2, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> happening. Betsy DeVos is a neutron bomb to public schooling in ther US
> and military spending just keeps rising.
 
> Poor bob.
 
 
DeVos and the administration's military policy are some of the few reasons to defend the orange clown. US liberals are too weak against foreign threats.
 
Max
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Aug 10 12:28AM +0300

Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti 10.8.2017 klo 0:08:
> happening. Betsy DeVos is a neutron bomb to public schooling in ther US
> and military spending just keeps rising.
 
> Poor bob.
 
Not a big surprise. President with an IQ below 90 will be completely
bossed around by the generals. And Putin.
calimero377@gmx.de: Aug 09 02:30PM -0700

On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 11:28:58 PM UTC+2, TT wrote:
 
> > Poor bob.
 
> Not a big surprise. President with an IQ below 90 will be completely
> bossed around by the generals. ....
 
 
Which is a good thing.
No more whimping around like Obama.
 
 
Max
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Aug 10 12:36AM +0300


> Which is a good thing.
> No more whimping around like Obama.
 
> Max
 
But then there's the Putin part...
 
Besides, things are better handled with treaties than wars. Iran would
be a prime example, a treaty which Trump has tried to fuck up to best of
his ability.
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