Winning!
“We’re going to win. We’re going to win so much. We’re going to win at trade, we’re going to win at the border. We’re going to win so much, you’re going to be so sick and tired of winning, you’re going to come to me and go ‘Please, please, we can’t win anymore.’ You’ve heard this one. You’ll say ‘Please, Mr. President, we beg you sir, we don’t want to win anymore. It’s too much. It’s not fair to everybody else.’” Trump said. “And I’m going to say ‘I’m sorry, but we’re going to keep winning, winning, winning, "
LOL!!!
North Korea has ALWAYS been willing to give up nukes. Watch the US put impossible preconditions on "negotiations".
ReplyDeleteFYI Trump isn't driving the bus.
Guns a blazing, like out of a cowboy western film.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNorth Korea has ALWAYS been willing to give up nukes. Watch the US put impossible preconditions on "negotiations".
ReplyDeleteIndeed. And only if there is no longer a US military threat to NK (peace treaty). Funny how this important bit of info. was absent from the mainstream news.
Text of special envoys’ statement after NK trip
http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20180306000954FYI
Trump isn't driving the bus.
Trump isn't even on the bus, let alone driving it. How can he be? He's probably in a corner somewhere in the West/East Wing working on his next "Alex" Baldwin tweet ;)
PS: Later on I shall mosey on over to Scott Adams's twitter account and watch him turn himself into a human pretzel once again as he tries to explain this as just another concrete example of Trump's "genius" in negotiation tactics.
Or you can just wait for Franko to do it here ...
ReplyDeleteNoah Way and lastgreek, don't complicate things with irrelevancies like obvious facts or the politics and history of Korea - what Matt would ordinarily call material systems analysis if applied to stuff like reinforced concrete or banking operations. Self-evident facts, history, science and anything that can be proven by the scientific rigour that has given us the world we have mean absolutely nothing to him. He'd claim it was stochastic rationalist Darwinism or some other silly gibberish he'd make up, start quoting the Bible and tell us that Jesus was pro-Roman and wanted to introduce fiat money by allowing himself to be crucified. What he's allegedly interested in is empiricism, which he falsely believes means nothing more than being experimentally verifiable...just as long as its not all those experimentally verified areas of science that offend him in some fashion.
ReplyDeleteAs any expert on North Korea will tell you, North Korea was always willing to give up its nuclear weapons (it only recently acquired them as a card to push for a non-aggression deal). Or given that such an expert will, to Matt anyway, simply be a liberal internationalist. just do a Google search, for heaven's sake! But Google are liberal internationalists too! To avoid having his mind thus soiled, Matt tunes in to Trump himself, or failing that Fox and Limbaugh. When he's feeling more openminded there's NRAtv.
If Trump claimed he drinks coffee in the morning and then got Fox to air him doing just that, Matt would go around screaming "Winning!"
There seem to be two sets of people here at MNE. Set one contains as its sole member Matt, who sees everything through ultra-nationalistic and Trumpian lenses in which the US is axiomatically right and Trump is a genius. Set two contains everyone else, who just happen to not live in Matt's parallel dimension, and believe the US behaves like an empire (because it is) and Trump is a stupid oafish disaster. In reply to reality, Matt will just come up with some more pseudoscientific nonsense like the members of set one (Matt) are empirical deterministic material systems analysts and the members of set two (the inhabitants of planet earth) are rational non-deterministic Darwinians...
I suppose we'll see more posts by Matt titled "Winning". The rest will be about "shithole" countries (so devoted is Matt to the fool in chief, Trump's memes are directly transplanted into Matt's brain) and all the countries who need to be bombed because Washington has decided that they should. David Hume would be impressed.
Greek maybe push for Nova Scotia to be annexed by Maine ?
ReplyDeleteI hope you guys appreciate how much time I put in trying to find this Trump photo with perfect DOUBLE pistol grip....
ReplyDeleteWhen I put out the article, One in Five CEO's is psychopath, I originally had a brilliant picture of the Kray Twins looking totally menacing, and picture of a mobster from a Hollywood movie blasting away with a submachine gun. I wish I had left them in.
DeleteMatt,
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acadians
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Americans
@ John - We have to be careful with language here, because the evidence of DPRK nukes is somewhat less than stellar and even if true they don't have a demonstrated delivery system that can reach Guam let alone the US (an empty warhead goes a lot farther than a loaded one).
ReplyDeleteAside from the fact that the DPRK military is strictly defensive (as opposed to the US), even the most robust nuclear program would be outnumbered by at least 1,000:1, making any aggressive act suicidal.
As with most "news", it's all upside down and backwards. The crazies aren't in North Korea, they're in the US.
Noah Way, I agree. But North Korea may well have some sort of delivery device for the South. If so, that's South Korea and Japan annihilated, either immediately or via nuclear fallout. Apparently, what US intelligence fears most is not a missile that reaches the US mainland - that seems to be a diversionary tactic - but a warhead that can be smuggled from container to container on a boat and exploded not on the mainland but a few miles out at sea. How many large US cities are on the coasts? So the US best figure a way out of this self-inflicted mess because fallout will practically kill everyone in North America. Technology being what it is, how long before the North develops missiles that can travel thousands of miles? Not that this is what the intelligence agencies fear: the North's best plan is to concentrate on marine based delivery, which unfortunately is what they're doing, and it's apparently next to impossible to deter. But that's always been the case since the bomb was developed.
ReplyDeleteThe solution to this madness has been known for some time: the one China has drawn up, which includes North Korea giving up all its nuclear warheads, the US signing a non-aggression pact (no invasion of North Korea), halting the unnecessary war games on the border and a whole host of other potentially incendiary military idiocies that the US carries out. The whole world accepts this China-initiated deal/compromise. The only country that doesn't is the US. The US usually strong-arms South Korea and Japan into taking the US line, but everyone else sees the US as the problem, not the solution, just as it is in the Middle East.
What non one is talking about is that nuclear weapons are actually just a distraction.
ReplyDeleteSmaller countries that must rely on asymmetrical warfare are likely to go biological rather than nuclear. It's less expensive, simpler to deliver, and highly effective against just about any defense.
Belfer Center
North Korea’s Biological Weapons Program: The Known and Unknown
Elizabeth Philipp Hyun-Kyung Kim Hattie Chung
Tom, it depends on what that country wants to achieve. I remember military analysts in rightwing think tanks saying that Iraq showed that you'd have to be crazy not to have nuclear weapons. A chemical or biological attack isn't going to deter the US or any other power. A nuclear deterrent would do so instantly.
ReplyDeleteNo matter what, the US isn't going to attack any nuclear power. Forget all that stuff that we read all the time about the US preparing to attack Russia or China or whoever. The US will try an break these countries up. But it would never attack these countries, and I believe that no America Admiral or General would obey such an order. If such an order were given, I believe that the autopsy report would read that the President had broken his neck while tripping over his shoelaces, choked on a cheeseburger, buggered himself to death or something along those lines. The thing that is most likely to kill all life is accidental firing of nuclear weapons, or the belief that there has been an overwhelming attack and that a similar response is necessary. That's what the intelligence analysts have suggested. On the whole, I tend to think they're essentially right.
Tom, it depends on what that country wants to achieve. I remember military analysts in rightwing think tanks saying that Iraq showed that you'd have to be crazy not to have nuclear weapons. A chemical or biological attack isn't going to deter the US or any other power. A nuclear deterrent would do so instantly.
ReplyDeleteThink Doomsday weapon. These countries are not going to advertise a biological capability the way that the nuclear deterrent is advertised. They will just let the intel agencies know that if it comes to it, their country won't survive a retaliatory biological attack.
A lot of this goes on backchannel. It doesn't become public.
What's made public is basically a marketing and advertising operation to influence public opinion.