TRUMP - Some people think......... How do you feel?

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
Northwind said:
It's a start.
Click to expand...

Do dreams have a system of ontological finish so the alternates can quiet them ... like oncological stuff this eats me right up ... so I try and eject my thoughts and dreams ... a few hear them ... it is writ and still there are complaints about wordy rackets ...

Knight cometh ... a tin man with all the last straws ...
 
Dragging back in:
On the 2 twits in the Twit flame war
It's mind boggling
I can stand back and:
2 world leaders are taking the piss on each other on Twitter
Lol
I'd rather have that than war
LA DI DAH!!!
 
Inannawhimsey said:
Dragging back in:
On the 2 twits in the Twit flame war
It's mind boggling
I can stand back and:
2 world leaders are taking the piss on each other on Twitter
Lol
I'd rather have that than war
LA DI DAH!!!
Click to expand...

The problem right now is that you have one of those twits threatening to take action based on the tweets of the other twit. Specifically, North Korea is calling one of Trump's tweets a declaration of war and threatening to fire on US planes even outside its airspace.
 
I was reading in the Toronto Star, that NK has been (and this is not a new thing) trying to arrange meetings with heads of think tanks, and political scholars, who advise US politicians on policy, etc. - non governmental people - to discuss Trump because they can't figure him out. As a way of having unofficial, official back channel talks I guess. I can imagine these people saying, "Neither can we." Nevertheless, that they are meeting with knowledgeable people shows that they are maybe not as impulsive as Kim Jong Un's rhetoric suggests.

However, what they want is to be recognized as a nuclear state. They are not going to give up on that no matter how many sanctions are put on them. And at this point, what other (viable, safer) options are there than to recognize that they are a nuclear state?
 
Last edited:
Kimmio said:
And at this point, what other (viable, safer) options are there than to recognize that they are a nuclear state?
Click to expand...

As if any US government likely to be elected in the next decade will accept that. Even Obama wouldn't have.

That said, we seem to accepted the addition of Pakistan and India to the nuclear club even though that's potentially just as destabilizing as NK having nukes. And no one, even the Arabs, seems to be making a fuss about Israel's likely possession of nukes (or at least the technology to build them), which is one of the world's worst kept secrets.

Personally, Trump and Putin with nukes makes me more nervous than Kim with nukes. Kim is unlikely to ever possess enough to do much long term damage. He's a threat to his neighbours but not the world. Both Trump and Putin could easily end civilization with a flick of a button. Trump is easily as unstable as Kim while Putin is very much in the mold of classic Russian autocrats like Peter the Great and Stalin.
 
Keep in mind that Kim Jong Un televises computerized fake airstrikes on US planes, and Trump plays to his base (well, they both do). Kim Jung Un wouldn't actually have to do anything to make his people believe that he did, and still save face. And Trump's supporters will believe anything, too.
 
Abstract ... imagination is a wonderful thing if not looked into ... a dark occult art ...

Few believe it's existence ... because of the doubt-filled Shadow ... Jay Zues friend ... partisan?
 
Mendalla said:
As if any US government likely to be elected in the next decade will accept that. Even Obama wouldn't have.

That said, we seem to accepted the addition of Pakistan and India to the nuclear club even though that's potentially just as destabilizing as NK having nukes. And no one, even the Arabs, seems to be making a fuss about Israel's likely possession of nukes (or at least the technology to build them), which is one of the world's worst kept secrets.

Personally, Trump and Putin with nukes makes me more nervous than Kim with nukes. Kim is unlikely to ever possess enough to do much long term damage. He's a threat to his neighbours but not the world. Both Trump and Putin could easily end civilization with a flick of a button. Trump is easily as unstable as Kim while Putin is very much in the mold of classic Russian autocrats like Peter the Great and Stalin.
Click to expand...
He's a threat to the West Coast - and if he detonates an H bomb in space that could knock out satellites - communications systems and grids all over the world. I was reading that on CBC. Hawaii is already doing nuke drills with sirens and emergency procedures, with citizens. Causing that amount of fear and distress that state officials in Hawaii, as well as in Japan and SK, are taking it seriously - is already disruptive and psychologically damaging, imo. But the physical damage would be unfathomable.

That said, I really don't think anyone wants that.

And Putin, while sinister in his own way - is cooler headed than both of them, I agree.
 
Last edited:
And all this will pas tue ... pastoral .... field as felt? Crushed fabrication ... by sheer boule as indicate by Shaw'n the caldron ...
 
Kim jung is not a threat to anyone. The U.S. has at least 7000 nuclear weapons. There is not the slightest possibility that Kim Jung is a threat to the U.S. The reality is that the U.S. has been threatening and provoking North Korea since the 1950s. It carries out routine war games on the North's border. It's navy constantly patrols North Korean waters. American bombers frequently fly over North Korea.
The U.S. has used it's power to place trade sanctions on North Korea to keep it poor ever since the Korean war. Can you imagine the American reaction if Korea were to behave that way on the U.S. border with Mexico?
If anything, North Korea is the one country in the world that has a justification for possessing a nuclear deterrent.
Kim Jung is not the crazy one here. The crazies have included every American president starting with Truman who wanted to nuke North Korea in he early 1950s. Later presidents unleashed the most savage bombing (mostly of civilians) in the Korean war, killing 33% of the whole population. (In World War Two, Britain and Canada each lost one percent of their populations.
Yes, Kim jung looks funny and he does play power games. But the rebuilding of North Korea since that war has been an amazing accomplishment. (It now has an education system way superior to the US - and to Canada.)

The bottom line is that the U.S. wants to conquer China to make American billionaires even richer. The U.S. has wanted China for a long time. That's why it annexed Hawaii to build a naval base way out in the middle of the Pacific. That's why it conquered The Philippines. That's why it wanted a war with Japan in 1941. And that's why it sucked in its allies, like Canada, to fight the Korean War in 1950. Korea is the door to China.
In understanding the causes of wars don't waste time on looking for kooky or cruel rulers - not Trump and not Kim Jung. Look for the greed of capitalism.
If the U.S. had ever been serious about bringing peace to that region, it would have helped the North Koreans rebuild after the Korean war - as it helped Germany to rebuild after 1945. But it didn't. And it could almost certainly have held talks with Kim Jung to normalize relations. But it didn't do that either.
Face reality. American policy to North Korea is shaped by pure greed.
 
So his threat to test a powerful H Bomb somewhere in or over the Pacific is not a threat right now, at present? Regardless of history, regardless of policy, now is now. I agree Trump is also a threat. They both are because of their impulsive reactions.
 
The U.S. has tested dozens of nuclear bombs over the Pacific. How come nobody thought that was a threat?
The U.S. has been provoking and threatening North Korea for over 60 years. It has wanted a war with Korea for all those years. Kim Jung's response is really a mild one. But any attack from North Korea would mean a massive response from a far, far more powerful U.S. For all his funny haircut, Kim jung knows that.
The excuse for having nuclear weapons is that they are supposed to be a deterrent. That's why the U.S. says it has 7,000 of them. So why is it wrong for North Korea to have a much smaller number of them?
 
It's wrong for anyone to have them. How are developed countries ever going to disarm while developing ones are arming. The whole thing is a dangerous pissing contest drummed up by sociopathic powerful men. How crazy did they have to be to think it was a good idea to hold the world hostage with those god awful things to begin with? I rue the day they were invented, almost two generations before I was born. Jerks. Why? I'd like to tell myself that after Hiroshima, nobody proliferated more nukes, the lesson was learned - and now, whatever they're doing they're all just pretending to have them to keep us insignificant people in the world scared. It may not be true but what difference does it make?
 
Kimmio said:
It's wrong for anyone to have them. How are developed countries ever going to disarm while developing ones are arming. The whole thing is a dangerous pissing contest drummed up by sociopathic powerful men. How crazy did they have to be to think it was a good idea to hold the world hostage with those god awful things to begin with? I rue the day they were invented, almost two generations before I was born. Jerks. Why? I'd like to tell myself that after Hiroshima, nobody proliferated more nukes, the lesson was learned - and now, whatever they're doing they're all just pretending to have them to keep us insignificant people in the world scared. It may not be true but what difference does it make?
Click to expand...
It's not the rich building the nukes, it's the everyday person who gets hired to make them.....how would they build them if no one worked for them? But we do, and the pay cheque is king, rather than the high road....and if you're in need of a job the rich know that money talks over morality. So we're actually creating our own doom.
 
Oh, I'm not suggesting we should give up on nuclear disarmament. In fact, we should have begun it the day after Hiroshima. But we didn't. And the U.S., Britain, France and Russia made no attempt to initiate nuclear disarmament. In fact, they built them at a tremendous pace. They also helped Israel to get them - and have you noticed there was no fuss from our news media when Israel got nuclear weapons? And India and Pakistan?
So why the fuss over North Korea? And why didn't we see such a fuss right from the start when the U.S. developed them? After all, the U.S. is a far, far bigger nuclear threat to the whole world than North Korea could ever hope to be. The U.S. is far, far more likely to start a nuclear war than North Korea is.
The UN should be tackling the real problem here - U.S. provocation and threats to North Korea.
Powerful interests in the US (economic ones) want a war with North Korea. The last time that happened, the U.S. killed one third of the whole population of North Korea, and has since used every effort to keep it poor. It also came very close to using nuclear bombs in the first Korean war. (Truman wanted to.)
Kim Jung's threat to the world is a very, very limited one. The biggest threat, by far, comes from the U.S. But Justin and most western leaders and western news media will see only virtue on our side.
 
Waterfall said:
It's not the rich building the nukes, it's the everyday person who gets hired to make them.....how would they build them if no one worked for them? But we do, and the pay cheque is king, rather than the high road....and if you're in need of a job the rich know that money talks over morality. So we're actually creating our own doom.
Click to expand...
I'm not working in those factories, nor do I support their existence, nor am I chasing after a big paycheque - I don't need a lot - though I don't blame the workers. They are making ends meet and I suppose, in some towns, that's the main industry - there aren't many employment choices. I blame those who decided building them was a good idea, and those who built such factories for building them. CEOs probably take in a hefty sum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top