My new ("new" = thought of right now) hypothesis is that Trump is actually a multi-brane breach/rupture, and as a finite being, is having great difficulty perceiving the differences between near-certain realities and infinite unrealized potentialities that are all hurricane-whirling about him. These uncontained energies would also explain the huge increase in reported Mandela events and Spicey's televised slow-morphing into a gibbering mouther.
Welp, the administration is insisting they made no mistakes and said nothing misleading. The theory, I think, is roughly that saying the "armada" is steaming shouldn't have been taken to imply action in the present, but rather a week or two in the future. Any misinterpretation, I assume, is the fault of our lying ears, not their honest mouths, because wherever the communication buck stops, it sure isn't with them.
In other news, the ships are apparently going to Korea for real this time. I suppose that undoes the silver lining of my last post, although I should say that I don't have any special insight into whether or not the President is serious about using them. He might not be?
In other news, the ships are apparently going to Korea for real this time. I suppose that undoes the silver lining of my last post, although I should say that I don't have any special insight into whether or not the President is serious about using them. He might not be?
If he were serious about using them, he would have actually sent them there. When he makes stuff up off-the-cuff like this, it's not with any actual thought behind it.
That doesn't mean, of course, that the Koreans won't take their presence seriously, or that Kim won't do something stupid and escalatory. Or that Trump himself won't do something stupid and escalatory. Just because he's not serious right now doesn't mean he won't keep shooting off his mouth....
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If he were serious about using them, he would have actually sent them there.
In truth this is a fair point. I also imagine that someone aiming to attack North Korea would want a bigger armada.
:)
Got a smile out of me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
:)
Makes me miss Comrade Dingo.
:)Makes me miss Comrade Dingo.
Has anyone heard from him or know if he is ok? I am still worried about him. He went through some rough times.
I hope we hear more about this amazing chocolate cake...
Something worth noting is that having the American strike team near NK actually gives NK an option it didn't have before: nuking the strike team. That way, it will hit only the US military, unlike the US bases in SK.
it would seem Mr. Trump has a poor grasp of things like fleet size (not to mention world history and the English language).
Five ships is a...task force or strike group. Now the invasion fleet assembled for the pending final attack on the Japaneses home islands in WWII, that Mr. President, is what an Armada looks like. (though to be fair, navel warfare is quite different even now as opposed to then, so small fleet sizes are more normal, as the age of the battleship and massive gun salvos is long past)
Of note, Trump has a repetitively small hat (compared to say Barbossa), I wonder what a small hat implies...
@ Sissyl I would think that still risks nuclear fallout getting windblown right back at NK, of course, they possibly don't care, fallout shelters and all (for the heads of the state, not everyone else...)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You CAN check the weather report before you nuke someone. It is only good practice.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want to laugh...but all that comes out sounds more like a sob
Entirety of the U.S. Senate to be briefed on North Korea 3 p.m. Eastern on Wed 26 Apr.
A similar briefing is said to be in the pipe for the entirety of the House.
To hell with this war of words...settle this here and now by forcing Kim and Donald to duke it out one on one via fistacuffs, now that I would like to see!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To hell with this war of words...settle this here and now by forcing Kim and Donald to duke it out one on one via fistacuffs, now that I would like to see!
Should be done on the links. Trump gets plenty of practice in; but not too much like Obama, amirite? Also, doesn't Kim shoot 18 on 18?
Hole in one each time for the supreme leader, no ball would dare defy him of course!
USS Nimitz to join the USS Ronald Reagan and USS Carl Vinson in the western Pacific region. 28th May 2017
Latest DPRK ballistic missile test? 6 p.m. ET 28th May 2017
Germany says they can no longer rely on the UK and US as allies, that they and Europe must stand on their own. 28th May 2017
Russia reaffirms willingness to use tactical nuclear weapons if U.S. or U.N. troops enter Crimea or the eastern Ukraine. 2:35 ET weekend of 27th May 2017
Venezuela's slide into anarchy continues. 24th May 2017
USS Nimitz to join the USS Ronald Reagan and USS Carl Vinson in the western Pacific region. 28th May 2017
Latest DPRK ballistic missile test? 6 p.m. ET 28th May 2017
Germany says they can no longer rely on the UK and US as allies, that they and Europe must stand on their own. 28th May 2017
Russia reaffirms willingness to use tactical nuclear weapons if U.S. or U.N. troops enter Crimea or the eastern Ukraine. 2:35 ET weekend of 27th May 2017
Venezuela's slide into anarchy continues. 24th May 2017
The Germany headline made me LOL. Like... really? Overreact much?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who lives in Europe, I don't think it's overreaction at all.
Seems that way to me as well. Europe seems likely to be playing catch-up. Potentially, Europe could form a military alliance in parallel to the economic union, voiding the necessity for NATO altogether. With Russia to the east, terrorists both at home and across the Mediterranean and the withering of support across the Channel and Atlantic in such a short time, this is not outside the realm of possibility.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wasn't Merkel speaking to her constituents? My understanding is that between Trump's overall behavior and Brexit, the German public doesn't have much of a high regard for the US and UK right now. Pitching a "We need to rely on each other not these other countries" seems pretty sound politics from both the perspective of appealing to your own citizenry and just reading the tea leaves for our country's overall attitude.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My new ("new" = thought of right now) hypothesis is that Trump is actually a multi-brane breach/rupture, and as a finite being, is having great difficulty perceiving the differences between near-certain realities and infinite unrealized potentialities that are all hurricane-whirling about him. These uncontained energies would also explain the huge increase in reported Mandela events and Spicey's televised slow-morphing into a gibbering mouther.
Oh man, wish I could find my old post on this. It was about how Trump could see multiple realities, and he has a hard time telling which one is this reality.
It's also why he plays golf on his own golf courses. He bought the land and had it designed to match the other realities as close as possible so that the course is less confusing to his vision.
|
My new ("new" = thought of right now) hypothesis is that Trump is actually a multi-brane breach/rupture, and as a finite being, is having great difficulty perceiving the differences between near-certain realities and infinite unrealized potentialities that are all hurricane-whirling about him. These uncontained energies would also explain the huge increase in reported Mandela events and Spicey's televised slow-morphing into a gibbering mouther.Oh man, wish I could find my old post on this. It was about how Trump could see multiple realities, and he has a hard time telling which one is this reality.
It's also why he plays golf on his own golf courses. He bought the land and had it designed to match the other realities as close as possible so that the course is less confusing to his vision.
Does both of this lead to the conclusion that D.T. (the thought alone makes me dread writing his name) is either Nyarlatotep or Yog Sothoth?
I dunno - there's this character in Torment: Tides of Numenera...
She actually didn't say anything about UK and US being unreliable, that was extrapolation by the press - she did say that the EU needed to rely on each other and not on other countries, mostly.
This seems like a far more reasonable position. The idea that Europe should work towards its own goals and the idea that US/UK military alliances with Europe aren't trustworthy is a rather large chasm for even a US news headline to stretch. But I guess I wouldn't put it past them these days. And, as I said, it was the headline itself that made me LOL.
"Nyarley" is far, far more intelligent. Yog Sothoth ... let us hope not in full ... ;)
She actually didn't say anything about UK and US being unreliable, that was extrapolation by the press - she did say that the EU needed to rely on each other and not on other countries, mostly.This seems like a far more reasonable position. The idea that Europe should work towards its own goals and the idea that US/UK military alliances with Europe aren't trustworthy is a rather large chasm for even a US news headline to stretch. But I guess I wouldn't put it past them these days. And, as I said, it was the headline itself that made me LOL.
Same. ;)
Isn't it more likely Azathoth himself? I mean, mindless sounds pretty spot on?
Isn't it more likely Azathoth himself? I mean, mindless sounds pretty spot on?
He certainly has enough mindless flautists in his orbit ... ;)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This seems like a far more reasonable position. The idea that Europe should work towards its own goals and the idea that US/UK military alliances with Europe aren't trustworthy is a rather large chasm for even a US news headline to stretch.
The President of the United States has repeatedly suggested that he might not honor Article 5 of the NATO alliance. When directly pressed on the issue he refused to say that he would. Merkel then said that Europe can't rely on 'others' and must stand on its own.
Where exactly is the 'stretch' in interpreting that as Europe not being able to rely on the US to honor military alliances? Trump had just gone out of his way to make it clear that they can't.
Merkel didn't overreact. The media didn't stretch.
|
|
She actually didn't say anything about UK and US being unreliable, that was extrapolation by the press - she did say that the EU needed to rely on each other and not on other countries, mostly.This seems like a far more reasonable position. The idea that Europe should work towards its own goals and the idea that US/UK military alliances with Europe aren't trustworthy is a rather large chasm for even a US news headline to stretch. But I guess I wouldn't put it past them these days. And, as I said, it was the headline itself that made me LOL.
Don't worry, as far as I have read, a German newspaper agency (if you want to call the 'Bild' that) was the first to p**p out that headline ;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This seems like a far more reasonable position. The idea that Europe should work towards its own goals and the idea that US/UK military alliances with Europe aren't trustworthy is a rather large chasm for even a US news headline to stretch.The President of the United States has repeatedly suggested that he might not honor Article 5 of the NATO alliance. When directly pressed on the issue he refused to say that he would. Merkel then said that Europe can't rely on 'others' and must stand on its own.
Where exactly is the 'stretch' in interpreting that as Europe not being able to rely on the US to honor military alliances? Trump had just gone out of his way to make it clear that they can't.
Merkel didn't overreact. The media didn't stretch.
Article 5 has only been invoked once: after the 9/11 attacks. And Trump still can't even commit to standing by those who stood by us. >:(
This seems like a far more reasonable position. The idea that Europe should work towards its own goals and the idea that US/UK military alliances with Europe aren't trustworthy is a rather large chasm for even a US news headline to stretch.The President of the United States has repeatedly suggested that he might not honor Article 5 of the NATO alliance. When directly pressed on the issue he refused to say that he would. Merkel then said that Europe can't rely on 'others' and must stand on its own.
Where exactly is the 'stretch' in interpreting that as Europe not being able to rely on the US to honor military alliances? Trump had just gone out of his way to make it clear that they can't.
Merkel didn't overreact. The media didn't stretch.
Because for as idiotic as The Dumpster Fire in Chief is, he still will succumb to US political pressure. Particularly from his base who are ever itching to send America's young brown population to die in a foreign country for "our" freedom. The idea that the US would not meet our NATO article 5 obligation is frankly laughable. Getting worked up about it is allowing yourself to be manipulated by a (bad) salesperson. He is appeasing his supporters because he told them he would make NATO members "pay their fair share." So he is using a very old sales technique called "the takeaway." On a salesroom floor you put a product in a person's hand and build an image of their life with the object. Then you take it out of their hands and put it behind the counter. In this version he is putting the "idea," of article 5 behind the counter because he wants Europe to spend more for their own defense.
Lo and behold, Merkel advocates for exactly that position.
|
|
This seems like a far more reasonable position. The idea that Europe should work towards its own goals and the idea that US/UK military alliances with Europe aren't trustworthy is a rather large chasm for even a US news headline to stretch.The President of the United States has repeatedly suggested that he might not honor Article 5 of the NATO alliance. When directly pressed on the issue he refused to say that he would. Merkel then said that Europe can't rely on 'others' and must stand on its own.
Where exactly is the 'stretch' in interpreting that as Europe not being able to rely on the US to honor military alliances? Trump had just gone out of his way to make it clear that they can't.
Merkel didn't overreact. The media didn't stretch.
The media did stretch - 'we must rely more on each other' is not nearly the same as 'the US and the UK are no longer reliable / trustworthy'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trump did state during his campaign that he wouldn't honour article 5. He has not gone back on that statement. How exactly are the other NATO countries supposed to assume he will not refuse to help when the time comes? In what way is the US trustworthy in military matters?
Let's be clear here: The entire point of a military alliance is that you can count on having allies that will stand with you WITHOUT HAVING TO DEAL FOR IT IN AN ACUTE SITUATION. It may be that Trump and various Americans believe that what Trump is doing is pressuring the other NATO members to pay more. What he really is doing is taking away the idea that the US will help in case of invasion. At least not without having to make a deal when their backs are against the wall.
The media did stretch - 'we must rely more on each other' is not nearly the same as 'the US and the UK are no longer reliable / trustworthy'.
I don't think its much of a stretch as subtext. Or entirely an invalid way of seeing things.
As well as the basic fact that only an idiot would trust Trump as far as they could throw him on anything, even things he'd actually promised.
I do not trust him 7 feet 9 inches.
|
|
The media did stretch - 'we must rely more on each other' is not nearly the same as 'the US and the UK are no longer reliable / trustworthy'.I don't think its much of a stretch as subtext. Or entirely an invalid way of seeing things.
And when you take a perceived subtext and put XY said 'subtext' into the headline of your article, you are at the very least stretching your credibility.
Also note that European countries have stood with the US in war after war after war. The bizarre campaign in Afghanistan to protect the Afghan women. The equally odd Iraq war to prevent weapons of mass destruction the US government knew did not exist.
The next question will be: For what???
And if an attack was made against America, each NATO member would have a long, hard think about whether to get involved. Has America paid its money lately? Are there excuses not to join in? Can they pressure the US for a better deal when their backs are against the wall?
Trump is a businessman. He doesn't understand the concept of trust. These are the effects of that.
Trump did state during his campaign that he wouldn't honour article 5. He has not gone back on that statement. How exactly are the other NATO countries supposed to assume he will not refuse to help when the time comes? In what way is the US trustworthy in military matters?
Let's be clear here: The entire point of a military alliance is that you can count on having allies that will stand with you WITHOUT HAVING TO DEAL FOR IT IN AN ACUTE SITUATION. It may be that Trump and various Americans believe that what Trump is doing is pressuring the other NATO members to pay more. What he really is doing is taking away the idea that the US will help in case of invasion. At least not without having to make a deal when their backs are against the wall.
In all fairness to Trump (I literally just spit up in my mouth a little, but intellectual honesty is important if we [US] are going to get through this) NATO member states have been violating the treaty terms with blatant disregard for their obligation for decades. 2% of GDP is required military spending for each member. If NATO members wish to feel secure in it's promised protections, they should feel obligated to meet it's requirements. That is a completely reasonable position for the POTUS to take.
But in all actual reality in the real world for real; if Russian landing craft rolled up on the beaches of Greece or Turkey or rolled tanks into Latvia or Croatia, the US would provide more military assets in terms of hardware, technology, and manpower than the rest of Europe combined.
|
Wasn't Merkel speaking to her constituents? My understanding is that between Trump's overall behavior and Brexit, the German public doesn't have much of a high regard for the US and UK right now.
I wouldn't say "the public" as we are fully aware that neither Trump nor Theresa May are speaking for everyone in their countries. We know that a majority actually didn't vote for Trump and we also no that half of Britain (at least) is against the Brexit.
But if you look at the political spectrum, we're also aware that our conservatives (CDU) are much more progressive and left-leaning than your Democrats, so if the Republicans win the election that alone is already something which is considered as bad by most germans. Now if the Republicans win being led by a dangerous lunatic, that is even more to worry about.
The other thing to be aware of is that the erratic behavior of the Donald Trump team gives our leaders a great excuse to do things that have been necessary for a long time, namely to reform the European Union into a more cohesive whole. So while I consider Chancellor Merkels critizism as valid, I think that it also served as another argument to underline the necessity of deeper integration of the european countries into the EU. Especially as the CDU's sister party, the bavarian CSU (and her speech was held in Munich) has her own populist tendencies and often uses the EU as a scapegoat for any things going wrong.
BDTB: It is a reasonable position to take. It is not a reasonable position to say the US would not honour article 5. Which Trump did. And has not retreated from.
So, in truth in the true world for really really true reality: The rest of NATO can't bet on the US helping in case of invasion.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But in all actual reality in the real world for real; if Russian landing craft rolled up on the beaches of Greece or Turkey, the US would provide more military assets in terms of hardware, technology, and manpower than the rest of Europe combined.
On the other hand, the european countries combined spend more money on their military than the U.S. which would be another excellent argument for a better collaboration, because that would probably lead to more effective military structures by costing less money simultaneously.. Still, you're right as far as the 2% are concerned, and I totally agree that the european countries should feel obligated to meet the requirements of the NATO treaties. Especially the rich ones. like Germany.
But here's the thing: IF Russia would do something like this, we actually can't rely on the U.S. to do anything about it. So we (the europeans) need to be able to protect ourselves and if Donald Trump helps that our leaders finally realize that we can't hide any longer behind the american back, then I'd have finally found something positive about Trump to say.