Jobst

On 8/28/2017 10:58 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 19:54:59 -0500, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/28/2017 7:35 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On 8/28/2017 11:43 AM, wrote:

Every war since WW I was gone into from a Democrat President while
the Democrat party has been accusing Republicans of being war
mongers.

Hmm. Many of the wars the US was involved in were the reuslts of
treaty obligations and critical US interests, the roots of whihc
typically predated the president in office at the time (whether
Republican or Democrat) the shooting started.

Just to pick a few that started shooting under Republican presidents
post WW 1: The Lebanon Crisis (Eisenhower), Lebanese Civil War
(Reagan), invasion of Grenada (Reagan), bombing of Libya (Operation
El Dorado Canyon- Reagan), Operations Earnest Will/Prime Chance in
the Persian Gulf (Reagan), invasion of Panama (GHW Bush), the Gulf
War (GHW Bush), inervention in the Somali civil war (GHW Bush), the
war in Afghanistan (GW Bush), the Iraq War (GW Bush), the war in
North-west Pakistan (GW Bush). That list is not fully comprehensive
of all the operations as some are (Desert Storm, Desert Shield, etc.)
are under the larger umbrella conflicts mentioned above.

There were also conflicts that started under Democratic presidents,
but Tom didn't declare that those didn't happen so I don't need to
enumerate them.


Oh treaty obligations, eh? How about Suez 1956? That error of omission
breeds trouble right down to today.

Promises made often become inconvenient, but what's your word worth? We
have a president now who has no regard for the value of one's promises,
who has throughout his life been happy to break his word in the name of
what's profitable for him. He thinks it's quite wonderful to extend the
same faithlessness to his nation. I have no respect for him whatsoever.

I note some actual successes in your list by the way, not all were
debacles.

No regard was given to outcome because that was irrelevant to the claim
Tom made. Just went through the list and selected the ones where the
shooting started under Republican presidents. One could do exactly the
same with Democratic presidents.

The interesting thing wuold be to analyze how that name about. For
example, was there a realistc option not to engage Japan in WW II?
Roosevelt spent a lot of time dancing around having to deal with Germany
and trying to avoid involving America in the European theater.

It was not unlike Albright's weak and cowardly claim that they "didn't
know" that Rwanda had a genocide going on- even though anyone who
watched the evening news could tell instantly. Once you admit that, you
have to do something about it. The extermination of the Jews was no
secret, even if perhaps the sheer scale of it was not recognized.

As with mismanagement of the Dollar, there's plenty of error to go
around. Campaign slogans and actual policy are two different worlds
with nary a connection, let alone any causality.

Oh, what's said on the stump and what's said in the smoke filled back
room have little to do with each other. Not even a passing acquaintance
in mot cases. That's true for either party. Politicans generally say
idiot things to get people angry and to manipulate them to vote, then
get into office and mostly do something different (i.e., they go to work
for their real constituency).


"a president now who has no regard for the value of one's
promises"

At least to this point the Koreans and Japanese see it
differently. I hesitate to defend the man, who is obnoxious
personified, but in this case he hasn't screwed up yet.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 08:00:21 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 8/28/2017 10:58 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 19:54:59 -0500, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/28/2017 7:35 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On 8/28/2017 11:43 AM, wrote:

Every war since WW I was gone into from a Democrat President while
the Democrat party has been accusing Republicans of being war
mongers.

Hmm. Many of the wars the US was involved in were the reuslts of
treaty obligations and critical US interests, the roots of whihc
typically predated the president in office at the time (whether
Republican or Democrat) the shooting started.

Just to pick a few that started shooting under Republican presidents
post WW 1: The Lebanon Crisis (Eisenhower), Lebanese Civil War
(Reagan), invasion of Grenada (Reagan), bombing of Libya (Operation
El Dorado Canyon- Reagan), Operations Earnest Will/Prime Chance in
the Persian Gulf (Reagan), invasion of Panama (GHW Bush), the Gulf
War (GHW Bush), inervention in the Somali civil war (GHW Bush), the
war in Afghanistan (GW Bush), the Iraq War (GW Bush), the war in
North-west Pakistan (GW Bush). That list is not fully comprehensive
of all the operations as some are (Desert Storm, Desert Shield, etc.)
are under the larger umbrella conflicts mentioned above.

There were also conflicts that started under Democratic presidents,
but Tom didn't declare that those didn't happen so I don't need to
enumerate them.


Oh treaty obligations, eh? How about Suez 1956? That error of omission
breeds trouble right down to today.

Promises made often become inconvenient, but what's your word worth? We
have a president now who has no regard for the value of one's promises,
who has throughout his life been happy to break his word in the name of
what's profitable for him. He thinks it's quite wonderful to extend the
same faithlessness to his nation. I have no respect for him whatsoever.

I note some actual successes in your list by the way, not all were
debacles.

No regard was given to outcome because that was irrelevant to the claim
Tom made. Just went through the list and selected the ones where the
shooting started under Republican presidents. One could do exactly the
same with Democratic presidents.

The interesting thing wuold be to analyze how that name about. For
example, was there a realistc option not to engage Japan in WW II?
Roosevelt spent a lot of time dancing around having to deal with Germany
and trying to avoid involving America in the European theater.

It was not unlike Albright's weak and cowardly claim that they "didn't
know" that Rwanda had a genocide going on- even though anyone who
watched the evening news could tell instantly. Once you admit that, you
have to do something about it. The extermination of the Jews was no
secret, even if perhaps the sheer scale of it was not recognized.

As with mismanagement of the Dollar, there's plenty of error to go
around. Campaign slogans and actual policy are two different worlds
with nary a connection, let alone any causality.

Oh, what's said on the stump and what's said in the smoke filled back
room have little to do with each other. Not even a passing acquaintance
in mot cases. That's true for either party. Politicans generally say
idiot things to get people angry and to manipulate them to vote, then
get into office and mostly do something different (i.e., they go to work
for their real constituency).


"a president now who has no regard for the value of one's
promises"

At least to this point the Koreans and Japanese see it
differently. I hesitate to defend the man, who is obnoxious
personified, but in this case he hasn't screwed up yet.

Given the shenanigans that go on in the Korean "Royal Family" a
misstep might end up in Kim Jong-un sleeping with his half brother :-(
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 08:00:21 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

"a president now who has no regard for the value of one's promises"

At least to this point the Koreans and Japanese see it differently. I
hesitate to defend the man, who is obnoxious personified, but in this
case he hasn't screwed up yet.

The Trump Adminisrtion is following exactly the same procedures and
protocols regarding North Korea that have been in place for some 50
years. Trump shooting his mouth off hasn't changed what's actually
being done.

There is clearly an argument to be made that the approaches used by the
US and its allies to manage North Korea have, to date, not been
successful. Military intervention is off the table, despite Trump's
handwaving, because millions of Koreans on both sides of the border
would die in the first hour of fighting. The other reason of course is
that military intervention would almost immediately bring the US into
war with China.

There is another point, however, to be made. Would Donald Trump (or any
president or Congress) go along wth any other country telling us what we
can or can't do in our own defense? Of course not. Yet we feel quite
entitled to tell other countries how to run their affairs and how to
defend their soverign territories, and quite miffed if they don't go
along with what's good for the US. The same grounds that the US
believes allows it to have virtually unlimited military power hold for
every other nation on earth, if they can afford to chase that power.

North Korea and South Korea are still at war. By extension, the US as
an ally of South Korea is still at war with North Korea. In that
context, the crazy fat kid (as John McCain called him) isn't so crazy.
Kim Jong Un's enemy (us) has overwhelming military power compared to
him, so he is looking to level the playing field as expeditiously as he
can: nukes. When your country has nukes, nobody's going to **** with
you too much. That's why the US has 'em, and Russia, India, Pakistan,
Israel, the UK, France, China. Only one nation has opted out of the
nuclear club: South Africa, which disassembled its weapons and de-nuked.
The Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Turkey have stored and deployed
US-owned nuclear weapons under NATO terms.

There were about 68,000 active nuclear weapons in 1985. This has been
reduced to about 4,000 active weapons world-wide by 2016, with another
10,000 that are partially dismantled. A dozen or so of the biggest ones
would pretty much end life on Earth as we have known it. The reduction
in the nuclear threat is the result of the various treaties negotiated
and signed. Note that the bulk of disarmament occurred since the
Reagan-Gorbachev summit in 1986; Reagan articulated the simple notion of
securing freedom from the terror of nuclear destruction by eliminating
all nuclear weapons. That vision has, somewhat in fits and starts,
continued to guide intenational policy towards disarmament.

North Korea was at one point a signatory (to the Non- Proliferation
Treaty? My memory is hazy on that) but has withdrawn. Iran was never a
party to those treaties. Hence the difficulty with both those
situations. There are some diplomatic carrots and sticks; those worked
well enough with Iran to force them to the table and submit to
inspections and surveillance, but with Korea they do not seem to work.
I suspect that is due to their trade relationship with China softening
the effects of sanctions and blunting the effectiveness of the carrots.

On 8/30/2017 11:49 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 08:00:21 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

"a president now who has no regard for the value of one's promises"

At least to this point the Koreans and Japanese see it differently. I
hesitate to defend the man, who is obnoxious personified, but in this
case he hasn't screwed up yet.

The Trump Adminisrtion is following exactly the same procedures and
protocols regarding North Korea that have been in place for some 50
years. Trump shooting his mouth off hasn't changed what's actually
being done.

There is clearly an argument to be made that the approaches used by the
US and its allies to manage North Korea have, to date, not been
successful. Military intervention is off the table, despite Trump's
handwaving, because millions of Koreans on both sides of the border
would die in the first hour of fighting. The other reason of course is
that military intervention would almost immediately bring the US into
war with China.

There is another point, however, to be made. Would Donald Trump (or any
president or Congress) go along wth any other country telling us what we
can or can't do in our own defense? Of course not. Yet we feel quite
entitled to tell other countries how to run their affairs and how to
defend their soverign territories, and quite miffed if they don't go
along with what's good for the US. The same grounds that the US
believes allows it to have virtually unlimited military power hold for
every other nation on earth, if they can afford to chase that power.

North Korea and South Korea are still at war. By extension, the US as
an ally of South Korea is still at war with North Korea. In that
context, the crazy fat kid (as John McCain called him) isn't so crazy.
Kim Jong Un's enemy (us) has overwhelming military power compared to
him, so he is looking to level the playing field as expeditiously as he
can: nukes. When your country has nukes, nobody's going to **** with
you too much. That's why the US has 'em, and Russia, India, Pakistan,
Israel, the UK, France, China. Only one nation has opted out of the
nuclear club: South Africa, which disassembled its weapons and de-nuked.
The Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Turkey have stored and deployed
US-owned nuclear weapons under NATO terms.

There were about 68,000 active nuclear weapons in 1985. This has been
reduced to about 4,000 active weapons world-wide by 2016, with another
10,000 that are partially dismantled. A dozen or so of the biggest ones
would pretty much end life on Earth as we have known it. The reduction
in the nuclear threat is the result of the various treaties negotiated
and signed. Note that the bulk of disarmament occurred since the
Reagan-Gorbachev summit in 1986; Reagan articulated the simple notion of
securing freedom from the terror of nuclear destruction by eliminating
all nuclear weapons. That vision has, somewhat in fits and starts,
continued to guide intenational policy towards disarmament.

North Korea was at one point a signatory (to the Non- Proliferation
Treaty? My memory is hazy on that) but has withdrawn. Iran was never a
party to those treaties. Hence the difficulty with both those
situations. There are some diplomatic carrots and sticks; those worked
well enough with Iran to force them to the table and submit to
inspections and surveillance, but with Korea they do not seem to work.
I suspect that is due to their trade relationship with China softening
the effects of sanctions and blunting the effectiveness of the carrots.



1. "crazy fat kid".
He does not like to be called 'fat'. Therefore I rotate this
through our daily photo series:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...st/kim_fat.jpg

2. "approaches... have, to date, not been successful"
You, sir, have an odd sense of humor if by that you mean
'pay your enemy to kill your allies'. See also
Persia=Israel with direct US financing of the war effort
now in Lebanon and soon with nukes.

3. South Africa is indeed unique as the only other cases
(Ukraine & Libya) denuclearized and lost their sovereignty.
What leader looks to those as a model?

4. When idiots who ought to know better suggest 'negotiate',
they cannot name anything outside of bribery and
appeasement. We pay him (cash, oil, food) to ratchet up his
nutcase threats and demands. He pockets that and repeats, we
play along. What's the good part? I don't know if you have
ever had direct contact with unions/street gangs but once
you pay to not have your leg broken, the rate goes up and up.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 8/31/2017 6:36 AM, AMuzi wrote:

4. When idiots who ought to know better suggest 'negotiate', they cannot
name anything outside of bribery and appeasement. We pay him (cash, oil,
food) to ratchet up his nutcase threats and demands. He pockets that and
repeats, we play along. What's the good part? I don't know if you have
ever had direct contact with unions/street gangs but once you pay to not
have your leg broken, the rate goes up and up.

The missile fired over Japan is the perfect opening for the U.S. to
propose a massive defense build-up in Japan. This would infuriate China,
which might take real action against North Korea to avoid a Japanese
military build-up.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/10/why-china-will-not-isolate-north-korea-241504

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 9:10:52 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 8/31/2017 6:36 AM, AMuzi wrote:

4. When idiots who ought to know better suggest 'negotiate', they cannot
name anything outside of bribery and appeasement. We pay him (cash, oil,
food) to ratchet up his nutcase threats and demands. He pockets that and
repeats, we play along. What's the good part? I don't know if you have
ever had direct contact with unions/street gangs but once you pay to not
have your leg broken, the rate goes up and up.

The missile fired over Japan is the perfect opening for the U.S. to
propose a massive defense build-up in Japan. This would infuriate China,
which might take real action against North Korea to avoid a Japanese
military build-up.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/10/why-china-will-not-isolate-north-korea-241504

A real military mind I see there. China has ALREADY isolated North Korea. They have shut down their borders and aren't trading with them anymore.

Where do you get the idea that the media has one ounce of common sense? They way a world war much more than anyone else.

On 8/31/2017 9:19 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 9:10:52 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 8/31/2017 6:36 AM, AMuzi wrote:

4. When idiots who ought to know better suggest 'negotiate', they cannot
name anything outside of bribery and appeasement. We pay him (cash, oil,
food) to ratchet up his nutcase threats and demands. He pockets that and
repeats, we play along. What's the good part? I don't know if you have
ever had direct contact with unions/street gangs but once you pay to not
have your leg broken, the rate goes up and up.

The missile fired over Japan is the perfect opening for the U.S. to
propose a massive defense build-up in Japan. This would infuriate China,
which might take real action against North Korea to avoid a Japanese
military build-up.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/10/why-china-will-not-isolate-north-korea-241504

A real military mind I see there. China has ALREADY isolated North Korea. They have shut down their borders and aren't trading with them anymore.

Not true. They are still supplying two essential items: fuel and food.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-13/sanctions-a-blow-to-north-korea-but-oil-cut-needed-for-knock-out

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 8/30/2017 9:49 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
North Korea was at one point a signatory (to the Non- Proliferation
Treaty? My memory is hazy on that) but has withdrawn. Iran was never a
party to those treaties. Hence the difficulty with both those
situations. There are some diplomatic carrots and sticks; those worked
well enough with Iran to force them to the table and submit to
inspections and surveillance, but with Korea they do not seem to work.
I suspect that is due to their trade relationship with China softening
the effects of sanctions and blunting the effectiveness of the carrots.

"The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, commonly known
as the Non-Proliferation Treaty or NPT" [or NNPT] -Wikipedia

First nations signing in '68, some (France, Chian) as late as 1992.

Correct about N, Korea (a former signatory who withdrew from the treaty
in 2003, as the treaty allows).

Iran, however, was and /is/ a signatory nation to the NNPT -signed in
'68, Iranian legislature ratified in 1970 - but "was found in
noncompliance" [apparently in 2003 by the IAEA, but wikipedia is vague
here.]

The main non-signatories are Israel, India, and Pakistan (and NK now).

?Why is this in a thread titled "Jobst"??

Mark J.

On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 15:15:25 -0700, Mark J.
wrote:
On 8/30/2017 9:49 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
North Korea was at one point a signatory (to the Non- Proliferation
Treaty? My memory is hazy on that) but has withdrawn. Iran was never
a party to those treaties. Hence the difficulty with both those
situations. There are some diplomatic carrots and sticks; those
worked well enough with Iran to force them to the table and submit to
inspections and surveillance, but with Korea they do not seem to
work. I suspect that is due to their trade relationship with China
softening the effects of sanctions and blunting the effectiveness of
the carrots.

"The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, commonly
known as the Non-Proliferation Treaty or NPT" [or NNPT] -Wikipedia

First nations signing in '68, some (France, Chian) as late as 1992.

Correct about N, Korea (a former signatory who withdrew from the
treaty in 2003, as the treaty allows).

Iran, however, was and /is/ a signatory nation to the NNPT -signed in
'68, Iranian legislature ratified in 1970 - but "was found in
noncompliance" [apparently in 2003 by the IAEA, but wikipedia is vague
here.]

Huh. Thanks for the correction on that. I missed that Iran had ever
been in on that. Perhps being found to be working towards weapons-grade
plutonium and enriched uranium might be "noncompliance."

The main non-signatories are Israel, India, and Pakistan (and NK now).

?Why is this in a thread titled "Jobst"??

Hi, you must be new to Usenet. ;-) Give us a little bit longer and
we'll start talking about a former government movement in Germany...