#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Jobst
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Jobst
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Jobst
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Jobst
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Jobst
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Jobst
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Jobst
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... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How's Jobst Doing? | Tosspot[_3_] | Techniques | 54 | July 18th 12 01:58 AM |
Jobst | Phil H | Techniques | 83 | July 13th 11 12:53 AM |
Is jobst gone? | Crescentius Vespasianus | Techniques | 7 | June 23rd 11 12:08 AM |
When Jobst ... | Steve Freides[_2_] | Techniques | 1 | January 20th 11 09:28 PM |
Jobst | Brad Anders | Racing | 20 | January 19th 11 05:31 PM |