And the madman with nukes is ...

[Pelle Svanslös]

Most nonproliferation experts — as well as former President Jimmy Carter
and a number of former Pentagon and State Department officials, both
Republican and Democrat — agree that the brutal and murderous Kim, for
all his bluster, is not irrational or suicidal, but bent on preserving
his regime and preventing a U.S. attack. Nuclear weapons are a
defensive, not an offensive, tool for the North Korean leadership —
which, as Bill Clinton’s defense secretary William Perry observed on Fox
News in April, may be “ruthless and … reckless” but “they are not crazy.”

Got that? Kim is bad, not mad.

The same cannot be said of The Donald. Think I’m being unfair? In
February, a group of psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers
wrote to the New York Times “that the grave emotional instability
indicated by Mr. Trump’s speech and actions makes him incapable of
serving safely as president.” In April, another group of mental health
experts told a conference at Yale University’s School of Medicine that
Trump was “paranoid” and “delusional” and referred to the president’s
“dangerous mental illness.”

Is it any wonder then that so many recent reports suggest that South
Koreans are more worried about Trump than they are about the threat
posed by their hostile and paranoid neighbor?

Trump has form, though, when it comes to loose talk about nukes. During
the presidential campaign, in August 2016, MSNBC host and ex-Republican
congressman Joe Scarborough revealed that Trump, over the course of an
hour-long briefing with a senior foreign policy adviser, had asked three
times about the use of nuclear weapons. At one point during the meeting,
according to Scarborough, the then-GOP presidential candidate asked his
adviser, “If we had them, why can’t we use them?”

To be so blasé, enthusiastic even, about the deployment of the ultimate
weapon of mass destruction is a stark indicator of Trump’s childishness,
ignorance, belligerence, and, yes, derangement.

Listen to McCain’s fellow Republican super-hawk Senator Lindsay Graham.
“If there’s going to be a war to stop [Kim], it will be over there,”
Graham told NBC’s Matt Lauer last week, recounting a recent conversation
he had with the president. “If thousands die, they’re going to die over
there. They’re not going to die over here — and he’s told me that to my
face.”

“This is madness,” Kingston Reif, a nuclear disarmament specialist the
Arms Control Association, tweeted in response to Graham’s re-telling of
Trump’s remarks. “Unhinged madness.”

https://theintercept.com/2017/08/09/the-madman-with-nuclear-weapons-is-donald-trump-not-kim-jong-un/

[calim...@gmx.de]

Your hate for the orange clown is carrying you too far. Kim is a madman. He gives a shit for his citizen, absolutely shit. Which is a difference to the Soviets back in the day or to Putin or the Chinese.
Today Kim most certainly is not able to reach the USA with nukes. In a few years he will.

Yes, in case of war South Korea will suffer terribly. And probably Japan. But every American president has to look for his countrymen first. And therefore never can't accept a madman's nuclear ICBMs threatening the mainland.

There is a huge probability that Trump and his generals will do what probably is the only option - attack North Korea with their whole arsenal.


Max

[soccerfan777]

And what is reason for this nuclear war? Paranoia?

[*skriptis]

Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.los> Wrote in message:
> Most nonproliferation experts ? as well as former President Jimmy Carter

> and a number of former Pentagon and State Department officials, both

> Republican and Democrat ? agree that the brutal and murderous Kim, for

> all his bluster, is not irrational or suicidal, but bent on preserving
> his regime and preventing a U.S. attack. Nuclear weapons are a

> defensive, not an offensive, tool for the North Korean leadership ?
> which, as Bill Clinton?s defense secretary William Perry observed on Fox
> News in April, may be ?ruthless and ? reckless? but ?they are not crazy.?

>
> Got that? Kim is bad, not mad.
>

> The same cannot be said of The Donald. Think I?m being unfair? In

> February, a group of psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers

> wrote to the New York Times ?that the grave emotional instability
> indicated by Mr. Trump?s speech and actions makes him incapable of
> serving safely as president.? In April, another group of mental health
> experts told a conference at Yale University?s School of Medicine that
> Trump was ?paranoid? and ?delusional? and referred to the president?s
> ?dangerous mental illness.?

>
> Is it any wonder then that so many recent reports suggest that South
> Koreans are more worried about Trump than they are about the threat
> posed by their hostile and paranoid neighbor?
>
> Trump has form, though, when it comes to loose talk about nukes. During
> the presidential campaign, in August 2016, MSNBC host and ex-Republican
> congressman Joe Scarborough revealed that Trump, over the course of an
> hour-long briefing with a senior foreign policy adviser, had asked three
> times about the use of nuclear weapons. At one point during the meeting,
> according to Scarborough, the then-GOP presidential candidate asked his

> adviser, ?If we had them, why can?t we use them??

>
> To be so blasé, enthusiastic even, about the deployment of the ultimate

> weapon of mass destruction is a stark indicator of Trump?s childishness,

> ignorance, belligerence, and, yes, derangement.
>

> Listen to McCain?s fellow Republican super-hawk Senator Lindsay Graham.
> ?If there?s going to be a war to stop [Kim], it will be over there,?
> Graham told NBC?s Matt Lauer last week, recounting a recent conversation
> he had with the president. ?If thousands die, they?re going to die over
> there. They?re not going to die over here ? and he?s told me that to my
> face.?
>
> ?This is madness,? Kingston Reif, a nuclear disarmament specialist the
> Arms Control Association, tweeted in response to Graham?s re-telling of
> Trump?s remarks. ?Unhinged madness.?
>
> https://theintercept.com/2017/08/09/the-madman-with-nuclear-weapons-is-donald-trump-not-kim-jong-un/
>
>



Extremely stupid text. I don't know even where to begin with?


--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[TT]

Nothing to fear...

North Korea foreign minister said that the nukes are only for USA, other
countries are safe. Phew.

So at worst we have Guam, South Korea and California nuked, while North
Korea becomes molten glass. Not that bad really.

California could be safe for now though, since it's unclear whether NK
has miniaturized nuclear weapons yet to fit the rockets. The bureau
which claimed they have, said the same few years ago already and was
wrong according to all other sources.

Sounds to me that they don't have capability to hit mainland USA yet...
why else threaten Guam...

Hard to see any US first strike as serious tactic either. NK has moving
platforms with nukes and 25 million people, not to mention the fall out
to neighbouring countries. But if US is to do something about this they
better act fast, although it seems it's already too late.

Chilling post.

[calim...@gmx.de]

On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 11:11:19 PM UTC+2, soccerfan777 wrote:
> And what is reason for this nuclear war? Paranoia?

And what if, say, Kim gets diagnosed with cancer in 2020 and then suddenly feels insulted by a Hollywood movie?
You think he wouldn't decide to go down in a "blaze of glory" by attacking "the imperialists"? Sure? 100 % sure? Or maybe only 90 % sure? 80?

Remember Neville Chamberlain back in 1938?


Max

[TT]

In fact it could be a good thing!

-At least we'd get rid of terrible South Korean drama films.
-The life in North Korea is so miserable that USA would be doing them a
service by killing them
-Nobody cares about Guam
-Get rid of California and Republicans would rule USA, good for Trump.

I'm a bit worried about North Korean tigers though, although there's
probably no more than 10-20 left, if any. Even the poor animals have
nothing left to eat there (this is true).

[*skriptis]

soccerfan777 <zepf...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> And what is reason for this nuclear war? Paranoia?
>

Preemptive wars. Global domination.
Take a guess why max likes it and advocates it.


I feel Trump personally doesn't give a shit about Kim, but, like
any president, he's under public pressure from Grachus types who
are genuinely scared of north Korea, due to media brainwashing.
Remember him posting here being terrified with north Korean
missiles.

It's getting boring actually. Trump should either really nuke them
and be done with it, or make a lasting peace, which is I'm sure
he wants.

But we all know they try to obstruct him in every way. It would be
same to Russia story.

So peace is unlikely and war even more, America has suffered so
much bad PR wirh these invasions in recent decades.

I say UN should give a mandate to Pakistan and India to take care
of north Korea. Who ever defeats north Koreans sooner, gets whole
Kashmir. That should motivate both.

[joh]

Op woensdag 9 augustus 2017 23:28:55 UTC+2 schreef calim...@gmx.de:

Yeah, better blow Germany to oblivion, better save than sorry.

[bob]

:-( i've become rather fond of samsung's tvs and phones.

>California could be safe for now though, since it's unclear whether NK
>has miniaturized nuclear weapons yet to fit the rockets. The bureau
>which claimed they have, said the same few years ago already and was
>wrong according to all other sources.
>Sounds to me that they don't have capability to hit mainland USA yet...
>why else threaten Guam...
>Hard to see any US first strike as serious tactic either. NK has moving
>platforms with nukes and 25 million people, not to mention the fall out
>to neighbouring countries. But if US is to do something about this they
>better act fast, although it seems it's already too late.
>Chilling post.

not sure the usa needs to fight nukes with nukes. can possibly take
out their nuclear capability with conventional bombs.

bob

[TT]

bob kirjoitti 10.8.2017 klo 1:16:
> not sure the usa needs to fight nukes with nukes. can possibly take
> out their nuclear capability with conventional bombs.

Probably. Although when I wrote 'it's probably too late already' - I
almost added 'and has always been'.

North Korea can of course do some terrible devastation to South Korea
(US ally) with traditional and chemical weapons as well.

[*skriptis]

bob <b...@nospam.net> Wrote in message:

That's kinda gay and disrespectful.

What would you like to use vs Kim, the epitome of mad evil who's
developing his own nukes, looks cool, and is the only fatty in a
country full of starved and lean people, including his
generals?

Even the most powerful conventional bomb, MOAB was used against
some mountain bearded jihadists. It simply doesn't feel grand
enough to use that vs guy like Kim.

[bob]

if they did that to their own korean brothers then what does that tell
you about them and what they deserve.

bob

[bob]

ahahaha. lol

>What would you like to use vs Kim, the epitome of mad evil who's
> developing his own nukes, looks cool, and is the only fatty in a
> country full of starved and lean people, including his
> generals?
>
>Even the most powerful conventional bomb, MOAB was used against
> some mountain bearded jihadists. It simply doesn't feel grand
> enough to use that vs guy like Kim.

bob

[TT]

The leader of NK doesn't give a damn about his own people, so why would
he care about SKoreans...

In any case, bombing their nukes with conventional bombs would likely
not work as they have moving nuclear weapons, or at least claim the do.
And if you managed to destroy them - then what? War with a country of
25m utterly brainwashed people who hate you their guts?

[*skriptis]

TT <as...@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:

That's called highly motivated, disciplined and patriotic.

Weren't Japanese the same in ww2?

[TT]

bob kirjoitti 10.8.2017 klo 1:49:
> if they did that to their own korean brothers then what does that tell
> you about them and what they deserve.

But would South Korea deserve it...

[TT]

Shut up kid, adults are talking.

[bob]

On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 01:58:18 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:

>bob kirjoitti 10.8.2017 klo 1:49:
>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 01:23:28 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>>
>>> bob kirjoitti 10.8.2017 klo 1:16:
>>>> not sure the usa needs to fight nukes with nukes. can possibly take
>>>> out their nuclear capability with conventional bombs.
>>>
>>> Probably. Although when I wrote 'it's probably too late already' - I
>>> almost added 'and has always been'.
>>>
>>> North Korea can of course do some terrible devastation to South Korea
>>> (US ally) with traditional and chemical weapons as well.
>>
>> if they did that to their own korean brothers then what does that tell
>> you about them and what they deserve.
>>
>> bob
>>
>
>The leader of NK doesn't give a damn about his own people, so why would
>he care about SKoreans...
>In any case, bombing their nukes with conventional bombs would likely
>not work as they have moving nuclear weapons, or at least claim the do.

you think we're not watching where they're moving them? i'm not sure
you're aware of the american war machine's capabilities.

>And if you managed to destroy them - then what? War with a country of
>25m utterly brainwashed people who hate you their guts?

would rather not be involved in war with anybody, period. most
definitely would rather not be the unprovoked instigator of a war we
find ourselves in, or anyone else is either.

but defense is another story. i'm not convinced yet that NK is in any
type of truly offense posture toward the USA. talk is cheap. that fat
lil guy needs some sort of attention. maybe send over a few blondes.

bob

[TT]

Do you have blondes?

[TT]

bob kirjoitti 10.8.2017 klo 2:05:

> i'm not convinced yet that NK is in any
> type of truly offense posture toward the USA.

This is true. NK is and has always been a master of really aggressive
posturing. Moreover nukes are probably for defence.

Still, not a good thing this far out there country having them.

[bob]

probably not as many as you, but yes.

bob

[TT]

Well that explains the election results.

[bob]

blondes don't vote!

bob

[stephenJ]

On 8/9/2017 3:56 PM, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> Most nonproliferation experts — as well as former President Jimmy Carter
> and a number of former Pentagon and State Department officials, both
> Republican and Democrat — agree that the brutal and murderous Kim, for
> all his bluster, is not irrational or suicidal, but bent on preserving
> his regime and preventing a U.S. attack. Nuclear weapons are a
> defensive, not an offensive, tool for the North Korean leadership —
> which, as Bill Clinton’s defense secretary William Perry observed on Fox
> News in April, may be “ruthless and … reckless” but “they are not crazy.”

That was true of the USSR. Kim is different. He does seem unhinged. Kim
having nukes is like ISIS having nukes - fanatics who are reasonably
likely to value inflicting damage on the enemy regardless of the
consequences to themselves.

I really don't know if a pre-emptive strike on NK is warranted, it's a
brutally tough call. But if we do it, I won't second guess it. Kim does
seem like a mad man.



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

[stephenJ]

Sure seems that way.

[TT]

So does Trump btw.

[soccerfan777]

You guys talk about nuking as if it is some child's play. What about the millions of innocents who will die and millions others who will suffer the consequences of radiation?

[*skriptis]

soccerfan777 <zepf...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> You guys talk about nuking as if it is some child's play. What about the millions of innocents who will die and millions others who will suffer the consequences of radiation?

They'll be mentioned in history books as well, and will be
commemorated every year.

[stephenJ]

That's taking trump-hating beyond the pale. I've never seen crazier
political positions taken by the opposition to our President. And with
Bush Jr and Obama I thought I'd seen every crazy nutcase there was.

[Carey]

https://twitter.com/AskAKorean/status/895301904430968832

[*skriptis]

Carey <carey...@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:
>
> https://twitter.com/AskAKorean/status/895301904430968832
>


I can't describe the level of disgust I feel for the fake news now.

For months, years, they've been brainwashing and scaring people
with "mad Korean leader" and surprise, now he's not that crazy
anymore, he's just "bad" and president Trump gets the crazy
label.

Not that I, or anyone of free mind, thought Kim was every that
crazy to begin with.

But the spins and efforts the media make to discredit Trump are
unbelievable. These are the most dangerous creatures out here.


Trump should declare martial law, arrest all the fake news
journalists, neutralize their malignant propaganda and start open
negotiations with Kim.

They could sort it out in less than a week.

[bob]

On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 03:55:43 +0200 (CEST), *skriptis
<skri...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:

>Carey <carey...@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:
>>
>> https://twitter.com/AskAKorean/status/895301904430968832
>>
>
>
>I can't describe the level of disgust I feel for the fake news now.
>
>For months, years, they've been brainwashing and scaring people
> with "mad Korean leader" and surprise, now he's not that crazy
> anymore, he's just "bad" and president Trump gets the crazy
> label.
>
>Not that I, or anyone of free mind, thought Kim was every that
> crazy to begin with.
>
>But the spins and efforts the media make to discredit Trump are
> unbelievable. These are the most dangerous creatures out here.
>
>
>Trump should declare martial law, arrest all the fake news
> journalists,

ignoring them is more fun. they HATE to be ignored.

> neutralize their malignant propaganda and start open
> negotiations with Kim.
>They could sort it out in less than a week.

bob

[TT]

*skriptis kirjoitti 10.8.2017 klo 4:55:
> Carey <carey...@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:
>>
>> https://twitter.com/AskAKorean/status/895301904430968832
>>
>
>
> I can't describe the level of disgust I feel for the fake news now.
>

As do I, for the real fake news.

> For months, years, they've been brainwashing and scaring people
> with "mad Korean leader" and surprise, now he's not that crazy
> anymore, he's just "bad" and president Trump gets the crazy
> label.
>

You damn moron. I predicted this situation months ago... and here we
are, Trump threatening North Korea with fire and fury. His cabinet
giving mixed messages to NK.

Yes, Kim and North Korea is always a liability... but OF COURSE the
American media is more interested in US president, and frankly he can
not be trusted either on matters like these. This is a man who asked
several times "If we have nuclear weapons why can't we use them".

Trump is apparently seriously deliberating a nuclear first strike. You
see already Bob & Jaros sort of siding with Trump on the matter.

What do you expect US media to say... that Kim is crazy and first strike
is the only possibility? How do you expect even more crazy North Korea
to respond if they think that USA might do a first strike?!?
...The point is that Trump's attempts to escalate SHOULD be criticized
by the media. This is not a man who can handle diplomacy and thus is a
pretty big risk. Even 1% chance of pre-emptive strike from one side or
another is not acceptable. USA should be the adult in the room, while
North Korea is truly twisted country.

If first strike would happen that would be devastating not only for the
target but for the entire balance of fear with nuclear weapons...
imagine all the nuclear states fearing the real possibility of first
strike. What would that lead to...

Kim is unlikely to commit mass suicide doing first strike. How about Trump?

[*skriptis]

TT <as...@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:

> *skriptis kirjoitti 10.8.2017 klo 4:55:
>> Carey <carey...@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:
>>>
>>> https://twitter.com/AskAKorean/status/895301904430968832
>>>
>>
>>
>> I can't describe the level of disgust I feel for the fake news now.
>>
>
> As do I, for the real fake news.
>
>> For months, years, they've been brainwashing and scaring people
>> with "mad Korean leader" and surprise, now he's not that crazy
>> anymore, he's just "bad" and president Trump gets the crazy
>> label.
>>
>
> You damn moron. I predicted this situation months ago... and here we
> are, Trump threatening North Korea with fire and fury. His cabinet
> giving mixed messages to NK.

First of all, behave yourself. Don't insult. Now, you think
threatening with fire and fury is worse than saying north Korea
is an evil county? You know what happened to other couple of
"evil" countries?
They got utterly destroyed by the neocon war machine. What did
Trump verbally do that Bush or Obama didn't?
So cut the crap.

> Yes, Kim and North Korea is always a liability... but OF COURSE the
> American media is more interested in US president, and frankly he can
> not be trusted either on matters like these. This is a man who asked
> several times "If we have nuclear weapons why can't we use them".

I trust Trump 100%, have utmost confidence in his moral judgement.
Now what, prove your opinion is more worth?

> Trump is apparently seriously deliberating a nuclear first strike. You
> see already Bob & Jaros sort of siding with Trump on the matter.

Because they're Americans. Not only they were always victorious in
wars, they didn't even suffer in wars. E.g. Russians were
victorious too but suffered greatly. Americans miss that
experience. That makes them maybe overly confident and trigger
happy.
It's normal.

That's where the media comes. They should really be more
patriotic, more unbiased, and more helpful to Trump.

As it is, you have three sides, like in that gunfight in good, bad
and the ugly.
Kim, Trump and Trump's enemies.

Trump is a good guy, Kim is ugly and fake news are bad.

> What do you expect US media to say... that Kim is crazy and first strike
> is the only possibility? How do you expect even more crazy North Korea
> to respond if they think that USA might do a first strike?!?
> ...The point is that Trump's attempts to escalate SHOULD be criticized
> by the media. This is not a man who can handle diplomacy and thus is a
> pretty big risk. Even 1% chance of pre-emptive strike from one side or
> another is not acceptable. USA should be the adult in the room, while
> North Korea is truly twisted country.

The thing is, it's not only about Kim. China doesn't control him
100% but he's a Chinese tool in global showdown vs America. You
must not forget that too.
Americans are in the south Korea, so China friendly regime in the
north provides a balance.

You can't solve north Korean nuclear problem without having this
in mind. Basically it's Chinese pushing and expanding, projecting
power globally more and more so Kim gets bolder and bolder.


We have to congratulate them too on their restraint and wisdom.
These situations with emerging powers have always historically
led to wars.

>
> If first strike would happen that would be devastating not only for the
> target but for the entire balance of fear with nuclear weapons...
> imagine all the nuclear states fearing the real possibility of first
> strike. What would that lead to...
>
> Kim is unlikely to commit mass suicide doing first strike. How about Trump?

Irrelevant. Your whole analysis of this complex and old
geopolitical issue is a form of Trump bashing. It's pathetic
really.


These are the options.

1. USA accepts north Korea becoming nuclear power. Sounds shocking
but why not? We've seen other major nuclear powers not shitting
their pants so should millions in and around Korea really die
because Grachus is scared of Kim's powerful penetrating
missile?

2. USA doesn't accept north Korea becoming nuclear power and
invades north Korea, or bombs it. Pretty shitty scenario, many
dying, for which Grachus will be guilty.

3. Most ideal scenario, but very unlikely due to neocon scum. USA
leaves north Korea alone, promises to respect their sovereignty,
removes sanctions and they abandon development of their wmd,
rockets etc.

But the thing is, why would they do it, when the whole world has
seen you can't trust the bloodthirsty neocons. Saddam removed all
wmd and they killed him and destroyed Iraq. Gadaffi removed wmd
as well and Libya was attacked, destroyed and he was sodomized
with the sword in his anus and Hillary laughed at it.


You can't blame Kim for not buying it. Having nukes with an
ability to at least harm USA, is what keeps him safe in a lawless
world that neocons created.

[TT]

*skriptis kirjoitti 10.8.2017 klo 14:42:
> I trust Trump 100%, have utmost confidence in his moral judgement.

I don't think he even has one.

[Gerrit Rijtoopje]

1861 - 1865

[Carey]

On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 4:42:59 AM UTC-7, *skriptis wrote:

> You can't blame Kim for not buying it. Having nukes with an
> ability to at least harm USA, is what keeps him safe in a lawless
> world that neocons created.
>

This. He knows what happened in Libya after Gaddafi (sp?) gave up his Nuclear
program in an effort to get along with the Blob.

[stephenJ]

On 8/10/2017 12:32 AM, TT wrote:
> *skriptis kirjoitti 10.8.2017 klo 4:55:
>> Carey <carey...@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:
>>>
>>> https://twitter.com/AskAKorean/status/895301904430968832
>>>
>>
>>
>> I can't describe the level of disgust I feel for the fake news now.
>>
>
> As do I, for the real fake news.
>
>> For months, years, they've been brainwashing and scaring people
>> with "mad Korean leader" and surprise, now he's not that crazy
>> anymore, he's just "bad" and president Trump gets the crazy
>> label.
>>
>
> You damn moron. I predicted this situation months ago...

That's because you are a Trump hater, and therefore it's always
predictable, even to yourself, what you are going to say about Trump.

Those comparing Trump unfavorably to Kim are exposing themselves as
laughable in the worst way.

[TT]

stephenJ kirjoitti 10.8.2017 klo 16:51:
> Those comparing Trump unfavorably to Kim

And who are these people?

It's just Skriptis' imagination. He doesn't even follow US news afaik.

[The Iceberg]

Also their papers and stations going bankrupt cos of such awful journalism is fun too.

[The Iceberg]

It can't be any worse than what Hillary and Obama did to Syria, Libya and Iraq.

[The Iceberg]

That's what's so dumb, these idiot journos actually reckon normal sensible people take notice of their dumb opinions and can't guess they're only saying this stuff just cos they hate Trump. It's like that idiot Colbert he must think nobody notices how obviously bitter he is that his heroine Hillary lost.

[calim...@gmx.de]

On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 2:45:58 AM UTC+2, soccerfan777 wrote:
> You guys talk about nuking as if it is some child's play. What about the millions of innocents who will die and millions others who will suffer the consequences of radiation?

"What about the hundreds of thousand who will die if we have war with Germany?"
(Neville Chamberlain, London, 1938)


Max

[The Iceberg]

we forget Pelle and max are completely TERRIFIED that there'll be a nuclear war cos of Trump! LOL

[calim...@gmx.de]

Which max?


Max

[bob]

On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 14:36:49 +0100, Gerrit Rijtoopje <m...@privacy.net>
wrote:

who dropped nuclear bombs in 1861-1865?

bob

[bob]

On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 08:32:05 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:

>*skriptis kirjoitti 10.8.2017 klo 4:55:
>> Carey <carey...@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:
>>>
>>> https://twitter.com/AskAKorean/status/895301904430968832
>>>
>>
>>
>> I can't describe the level of disgust I feel for the fake news now.
>>
>
>As do I, for the real fake news.
>
>> For months, years, they've been brainwashing and scaring people
>> with "mad Korean leader" and surprise, now he's not that crazy
>> anymore, he's just "bad" and president Trump gets the crazy
>> label.
>>
>
>You damn moron. I predicted this situation months ago... and here we
>are, Trump threatening North Korea with fire and fury. His cabinet
>giving mixed messages to NK.
>
>Yes, Kim and North Korea is always a liability... but OF COURSE the
>American media is more interested in US president, and frankly he can
>not be trusted either on matters like these. This is a man who asked
>several times "If we have nuclear weapons why can't we use them".
>
>Trump is apparently seriously deliberating a nuclear first strike. You
>see already Bob & Jaros sort of siding with Trump on the matter.

wtf, i'm a near pacifist, i voted against hillary hawk!

but i have an open mind. there are cases where preemptive strikes are
incredibly valuable. i think the strike on the near vacant syrian air
strip was perfect. this may - or may not - be 1 of them. jury is
surely out, it's too early.

>What do you expect US media to say... that Kim is crazy and first strike
>is the only possibility? How do you expect even more crazy North Korea
>to respond if they think that USA might do a first strike?!?
>...The point is that Trump's attempts to escalate SHOULD be criticized
>by the media.

my gosh, trump breathing is criticized by the media. sheesh.

> This is not a man who can handle diplomacy and thus is a
>pretty big risk. Even 1% chance of pre-emptive strike from one side or
>another is not acceptable. USA should be the adult in the room, while
>North Korea is truly twisted country.

bad analogy. what does the adult do when his kids throw things against
the wall?

>If first strike would happen that would be devastating not only for the
>target but for the entire balance of fear with nuclear weapons...
>imagine all the nuclear states fearing the real possibility of first
>strike. What would that lead to...
>Kim is unlikely to commit mass suicide doing first strike. How about Trump?

bob

[Gerrit 't Hart]

I seem to recall (I was in High School at the time) that there was a
time when Russia was building missile bases in Cuba that the USA
President at the time (a certain JF Kennedy) that the president
threatened nuclear war with Russia if they did not remove the missiles.
The world held its collective breath and eventually Russia backed down.
John F Kennedy was (and still is - at least by the Democrats) hailed a
national hero.
Now we have a Republican (and I use the tern advisedly) president doing
almost the same to North Korea (which has actually threatened to attack
US territory) and he gets howled down.
Where is the consistency?

[The Iceberg]

you, your only answer about Trump being a fascist was that he might start nuclear war LOL

[*skriptis]

Gerrit 't Hart <s...@for.you> Wrote in message:

Well he was a strong/capable man, and in the end, everything
turned out well, so praise is warranted, but you might check some
facts about who started, and who backed down.

Wikipedia.
The Cuban Missile Crisis, also known as the October Crisis
(Spanish: Crisis de Octubre ), the Caribbean Crisis (Russian:
????????? ??????, Karibskij krizis ), or the Missile Scare, was a
13-day (October 16?28, 1962) confrontation between the United
States and the Soviet Union concerning American ballistic missile
deployment in Italy and Turkey with consequent Soviet ballistic
missile deployment in Cuba. The confrontation is often considered
the closest the Cold War came to escalating into a full-scale
nuclear war. [1]

In response to the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion of 1961 and the
presence of American Jupiter ballistic missiles in Italy and
Turkey, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev decided to agree to
Cuba's request to place nuclear missiles on the island to deter a
future invasion.



How did it all end? Americans removed missiles from Turkey,
Soviets from Cuba. And Cuba got a "promise" it won't be invaded
by the USA.

So eveyone backed down a bit.


The whole crisis started because Americans thought it's ok that
they aim Moscow from Turkey, but otoh it's unacceptable that
Soviets should aim Washington from Cuba. That was a bit weird way
of thinking.

> Now we have a Republican (and I use the tern advisedly) president doing
> almost the same to North Korea (which has actually threatened to attack
> US territory) and he gets howled down.
> Where is the consistency?

Trump is not powerful as Kennedy (meaning US establishment is full
neocon these days and oposed to him) so he can't solve Korean
crisis the way Kennedy could have, and had solved Cuban crisis.


Trump can't promise to the Koreans they won't be invaded in the
future in an exchange of giving up their nuclear program. He
can't do that because he's surrounded by traitors who oppose and
block him.

Also China stands behind north Korea, much much firmer, than the
Russians ever stood behind Cuba. Russians wanted US missiles
removed from Turkey so used Cuba as a bargaining chip.



This Chinese tactics of dealing with the west in a form of good
cop (china) and a mad cop (north korea) is pretty much effective
and cunning.

So from an American point of view, what would be most effective is
not a nuclear war on north Korea but a trade war with China.


Trump knows all this that's why he wanted to put aside Russia
hostilities as USA gains nothing from it nor are Russians any
threat to USA, also he wants manufacturing back to USA from
China, electronics especially which is very important.



Basically Trump is using a Nixon playbook. Nixon went to China
(then emerging 3rd power) to harm soviet union, a direct rival.

Trump wants to do the same, now China is a direct rival, he thinks
it's smart to have Russians much closer.

[calim...@gmx.de]

With Russia or China, dickhead!!
A war against NK, however, is winnable. And it would result in regime change.


Max

[Guypers]

Good post, agree!!

[The Iceberg]

Hahahhaah maxy reckons Trump is going to start a nuclear war with China and Russia, oh dear, were you like one of those CND idiots in the 80's?! Lol

[soccerfan777]

Germany was invading other countries and doing mass genocide of Jews, Romanis, Gypsies etc. North Korea is doing none of that. Trump is just provoking them with pfffff.... Twitter!

[calim...@gmx.de]

> Germany was invading other countries and doing mass genocide of Jews, Romanis, Gypsies etc. North Korea is doing none of that. ...

Neither did Germany in 1938.


Max

[soccerfan777]

So nothing wrong with what Neville said then. He was not Nostradamus to know what Hitler was upto.

[calim...@gmx.de]

People like "Neville" were responsible for millions of deaths. A coward like you. Peace at any price, trying to appease mad dictators.


Max

[soccerfan777]

No, it was people like Hitler. Read history, dumbass.

[calim...@gmx.de]

On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 9:24:14 PM UTC+2, soccerfan777 wrote:
> On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 2:09:30 PM UTC-5, calim...@gmx.de wrote:
> > On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 8:43:31 PM UTC+2, soccerfan777 wrote:
> > > On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 1:41:19 PM UTC-5, calim...@gmx.de wrote:
> > > > On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 8:33:10 PM UTC+2, soccerfan777 wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 9:42:04 AM UTC-5, calim...@gmx.de wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 2:45:58 AM UTC+2, soccerfan777 wrote:
> > > > > > > You guys talk about nuking as if it is some child's play. What about the millions of innocents who will die and millions others who will suffer the consequences of radiation?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "What about the hundreds of thousand who will die if we have war with Germany?"
> > > > > > (Neville Chamberlain, London, 1938)
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Germany was invading other countries and doing mass genocide of Jews, Romanis, Gypsies etc. North Korea is doing none of that. ...
> > > >
> > > > Neither did Germany in 1938.
> > > >
> > >
> > > So nothing wrong with what Neville said then. He was not Nostradamus to know what Hitler was upto.
> >
> >
> > People like "Neville" were responsible for millions of deaths.
>

> No, ...


Of course.


Max

[soccerfan777]

FDR might have been a bigger coward then. He advocated peace and the US did not enter the war until December 1941. That was two years after UK had declared war on Germany. And Neville did declare war on Germany.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/ww2outbreak/7957.shtml?page=txt

So piss off, you don't know squat about history and are absolutely worthless discussing on this topic.

[soccerfan777]

On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 12:54:40 PM UTC-5, The Iceberg wrote:
> Hahahhaah maxy reckons Trump is going to start a nuclear war with China and Russia, oh dear, were you like one of those CND idiots in the 80's?! Lol

If North Korea drops a bomb anywhere in the US (or Guam) there will be World War III.

[*skriptis]

soccerfan777 <zepf...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 12:54:40 PM UTC-5, The Iceberg wrote:
>> Hahahhaah maxy reckons Trump is going to start a nuclear war with China and Russia, oh dear, were you like one of those CND idiots in the 80's?! Lol
>
> If North Korea drops a bomb anywhere in the US (or Guam) there will be World War III.

Don't you read news?
China said it will react only if America attacked first. But if
north Korea attacked, and USA retaliated they would not do
anything. Translated...north Korea won't attack you, but don't
touch them.

So what world war do you see in USA obliterating north Korea,
should they make first aggressive move?

North Korea will become nuclear superpower most likely and
everyone would need to accept it.

It also means better chance for peace there.

Just think how many lives have been spared thanks to the fact
Pakistan and India having nukes. Without it there would probably
have been some bloody wars there.


All in all, Kim is doing well politically, but personally he
should go on a diet.

[soccerfan777]

BS. Germany invading Poland started a World War. Once nukes go flying it is matter of time, every nation starts using them against their enemies.

[soccerfan777]

And lets not forget nations like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria etc... nations which hate each other. And both India and Pakistan have nukes.

[*skriptis]

Technically British and French started it as they declared war on
Germany. You just used that reasoning wirh Roosevelt.



But anyway, like I said way earlier, you're a chicken. Afraid of
the nukes. You're scared but can't name one reason why there
would or could be nuclear war.
So it's completely illogical.

You just keep saying "it's scary" or "it could happen" without
naming who's the culprit or what is the real danger?

Go ahead, is it America or China or Korea? Trump or Kim? Who?

Please, don't give me Lennon style reply "it's all because of
brainwashed bad humans who are not enlightened enough and there
are many of those on all sides. Why can't we just love each
other".

[Carey]

I think it's worth remembering who has actually used nuclear weapons.

[soccerfan777]

If NK use nuclear weapons and US retaliates with nuclear, all bets are off. Iran, Pakistan, Israel and India and Russia follow suit

[*skriptis]

soccerfan777 <zepf...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> If NK use nuclear weapons and US retaliates with nuclear, all bets are off. Iran, Pakistan, Israel and India and Russia follow suit

If your scenario happens north Korea won't exist anymore.

And you think that is, or would be a great incentive for someone
to use nukes?

[calim...@gmx.de]

On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 10:49:15 PM UTC+2, soccerfan777 wrote:
> If NK use nuclear weapons and US retaliates with nuclear, all bets are off. Iran, Pakistan, Israel and India and Russia follow suit

Yes, when the US retaliate against NK India will nuke Pakistan.
Raja logic ...

Max

[soccerfan777]

Those who advocate for peace are not cowards, dipshit!

[soccerfan777]

Pakistan is more likely to nuke India.

[*skriptis]

soccerfan777 <zepf...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> Those who advocate for peace are not cowards, dipshit!

In what way are you advocating for peace more than other guys
here, myself included?

Spreading panic/fear around is not advocating for peace. It helps
to bolster hate and warmongering actually.

[Brian W Lawrence]

On 11/08/2017 09:57, *skriptis wrote:

> The whole crisis started because Americans thought it's ok that
> they aim Moscow from Turkey, but otoh it's unacceptable that
> Soviets should aim Washington from Cuba. That was a bit weird way
> of thinking.

How long would it take a missile fired from within the Soviet Union
to reach Washington?

How long for a similar missile fired from Cuba to do the same?

Both Italy and Turkey wanted Jupiters in their countries for their
own defence - both countries would, eventually, have been able to
launch the missiles themselves, although the US intended to keep
control of the warheads.

To answer my own questions:

~25 mins.

<5 mins.

Oh, and Khruschev was trying to support and defend Castro against the
US following the Bay of Pigs 'invasion'. The Jupiters installed in
Italy & Turkey were borderline obsolete.

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

[calim...@gmx.de]

On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 11:17:00 PM UTC+2, soccerfan777 wrote:
> Those who advocate for peace are not cowards, dipshit!

Not all of them. But many.
The same type of people who close their windows and turn the radio on when their neighbor beats his wife.


Max

[*skriptis]

Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_...@msn.com> Wrote in message:

>
> On 11/08/2017 09:57, *skriptis wrote:
>
>> The whole crisis started because Americans thought it's ok that
>> they aim Moscow from Turkey, but otoh it's unacceptable that
>> Soviets should aim Washington from Cuba. That was a bit weird way
>> of thinking.
>
> How long would it take a missile fired from within the Soviet Union
> to reach Washington?
>
> How long for a similar missile fired from Cuba to do the same?
>
> Both Italy and Turkey wanted Jupiters in their countries for their
> own defence - both countries would, eventually, have been able to
> launch the missiles themselves, although the US intended to keep
> control of the warheads.
>
> To answer my own questions:
>
> ~25 mins.
>
> <5 mins.
>
> Oh, and Khruschev was trying to support and defend Castro against the
> US following the Bay of Pigs 'invasion'. The Jupiters installed in
> Italy & Turkey were borderline obsolete.

But Castro "wanted" soviet missiles in Cuba as well. Also, US did
try to invade him, something soviet union didn't do at the time
in Turkey's case.

So what's next, major superpowers "fulfilling" all sorts of wishes
of their lackeys and vassals, or conducting responsible and sane
policy?

[Brian W Lawrence]

On 12/08/2017 17:41, *skriptis wrote:
> Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_...@msn.com> Wrote in message:

>> Oh, and Khruschev was trying to support and defend Castro against the
>> US following the Bay of Pigs 'invasion'. The Jupiters installed in
>> Italy & Turkey were borderline obsolete.
>
>
> But Castro "wanted" soviet missiles in Cuba as well. Also, US did
> try to invade him, something soviet union didn't do at the time
> in Turkey's case.

The US DID NOT try to invade Cuba, the 'invasion' was by a group of
~1,334 Cuban exiles - who were living in the US at the time. They were
sponsored by the CIA of course, but the CIA, at the time, had many
schemes to assassinate Fidel. So no US military personnel were directly
involved in the so-called invasion.

> So what's next, major superpowers "fulfilling" all sorts of wishes
> of their lackeys and vassals, or conducting responsible and sane
> policy?

What's next? Khruschev withdrew the missiles, JFK was assassinated,
Khruschev was replaced, etc., etc., etc.

1961 was 56 years ago, what happened then has little relevance to
today's situation.

[*skriptis]

Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_...@msn.com> Wrote in message:
> On 12/08/2017 17:41, *skriptis wrote:
>> Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_...@msn.com> Wrote in message:
>
>>> Oh, and Khruschev was trying to support and defend Castro against the
>>> US following the Bay of Pigs 'invasion'. The Jupiters installed in
>>> Italy & Turkey were borderline obsolete.
>>
>>
>> But Castro "wanted" soviet missiles in Cuba as well. Also, US did
>> try to invade him, something soviet union didn't do at the time
>> in Turkey's case.
>
> The US DID NOT try to invade Cuba, the 'invasion' was by a group of
> ~1,334 Cuban exiles - who were living in the US at the time. They were
> sponsored by the CIA of course, but the CIA, at the time, had many
> schemes to assassinate Fidel. So no US military personnel were directly
> involved in the so-called invasion.

Wow, big difference.

>> So what's next, major superpowers "fulfilling" all sorts of wishes
>> of their lackeys and vassals, or conducting responsible and sane
>> policy?
>
> What's next? Khruschev withdrew the missiles, JFK was assassinated,
> Khruschev was replaced, etc., etc., etc.
>
> 1961 was 56 years ago, what happened then has little relevance to
> today's situation.
>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>

[Brian W Lawrence]

On 12/08/2017 18:38, Brian W Lawrence wrote:
> On 12/08/2017 17:41, *skriptis wrote:
>> Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_...@msn.com> Wrote in message:
>
>>> Oh, and Khruschev was trying to support and defend Castro against the
>>> US following the Bay of Pigs 'invasion'. The Jupiters installed in
>>> Italy & Turkey were borderline obsolete.
>>
>>
>> But Castro "wanted" soviet missiles in Cuba as well. Also, US did
>> try to invade him, something soviet union didn't do at the time
>> in Turkey's case.
>
> The US DID NOT try to invade Cuba, the 'invasion' was by a group of
> ~1,334 Cuban exiles - who were living in the US at the time. They were
> sponsored by the CIA of course, but the CIA, at the time, had many
> schemes to assassinate Fidel. So no US military personnel were directly
> involved in the so-called invasion.
>
>> So what's next, major superpowers "fulfilling" all sorts of wishes
>> of their lackeys and vassals, or conducting responsible and sane
>> policy?
>
> What's next? Khruschev withdrew the missiles, JFK was assassinated,
> Khruschev was replaced, etc., etc., etc.

I meant to add that before Italy & Turkey had Jupiters the UK had US
Thors (from Aug 1958).

At the time the UK populace were advised that in the event of an attack
there was about 4 mins before missiles reached the UK - termed the
'4-minute warning'. London-Moscow is about 2,500km, Italy (Rome) is
about 2,400km from Moscow, and Turkey (Ankara) about 1,800km.
Turkey would have been a much shorter flightime, although I doubt
that it would be strategically significant -2m instead of 4m.

[TT]

bob kirjoitti 11.8.2017 klo 2:37:
> but i have an open mind. there are cases where preemptive strikes are
> incredibly valuable.

No. Not a pre-emptive strike with nukes. That's crazy.

[calim...@gmx.de]

Only if it is possible to take out NK's nuclear capabilities with conventional weapons.


Max

[TT]

Can it be done with nukes then... without destroying the whole country
and millions of innocent people...

The correct path would be negotiations but Trump hasn't even tried!

[*skriptis]

TT <as...@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:

lol

And you know that how exactly?

[joh]

Op zondag 13 augustus 2017 05:03:43 UTC+2 schreef *skriptis:

He's too busy playing golf to hire people
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/12/donald-trump-rhetoric-on-north-korea-echoes-loudly-in-void-of-us-diplomacy

[calim...@gmx.de]

You mean because negotiations with NK have had so much success in the last 25 years, right?


Max

[The Iceberg]

LOL you CND types in the 80's claimed unilateral disarmament meant we'd be left out of a nuclear war!

[The Iceberg]

On Friday, 11 August 2017 21:49:15 UTC+1, soccerfan777 wrote:
> If NK use nuclear weapons and US retaliates with nuclear, all bets are off. Iran, Pakistan, Israel and India and Russia follow suit

so you actually reckon there's going to be a nuclear war cos of Trump?!

[Pelle Svanslös]

Because of Mueller. I hope the SOB keeps his Grand Juries in line.

--
“Donald Trump is the weak man’s vision of a strong man.”
-- Charles Cooke

[TT]

Trump said he'd make a deal with Kim... didn't even try.
Quite the opposite.

[calim...@gmx.de]

Raja is a typical liberal wimp.


Max

[Guypers]

https://www.dailystormer.com/heather-heyer-woman-killed-in-road-rage-incident-was-a-fat-childless-32-year-old-slut/

[calim...@gmx.de]

So you think overweight promiscuous childless women can be run over with a car, you moron?


Max

[Guypers]

Jackass, I was posting about the idiot hateful website, you piece of shit!

[calim...@gmx.de]

Piece of shit? What?

That coming from you of all people is really comedy gold!!


Max

[bob]

On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 10:22:23 +0800, Gerrit 't Hart <s...@for.you>
wrote:

>On 11/08/2017 7:37 AM, bob wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 08:32:05 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>>
>>> *skriptis kirjoitti 10.8.2017 klo 4:55:
>>>> Carey <carey...@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://twitter.com/AskAKorean/status/895301904430968832
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I can't describe the level of disgust I feel for the fake news now.
>>>>
>>>
>>> As do I, for the real fake news.
>>>
>>>> For months, years, they've been brainwashing and scaring people
>>>> with "mad Korean leader" and surprise, now he's not that crazy
>>>> anymore, he's just "bad" and president Trump gets the crazy
>>>> label.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You damn moron. I predicted this situation months ago... and here we
>>> are, Trump threatening North Korea with fire and fury. His cabinet
>>> giving mixed messages to NK.
>>>
>>> Yes, Kim and North Korea is always a liability... but OF COURSE the
>>> American media is more interested in US president, and frankly he can
>>> not be trusted either on matters like these. This is a man who asked
>>> several times "If we have nuclear weapons why can't we use them".
>>>
>>> Trump is apparently seriously deliberating a nuclear first strike. You
>>> see already Bob & Jaros sort of siding with Trump on the matter.
>>
>> wtf, i'm a near pacifist, i voted against hillary hawk!

>>
>> but i have an open mind. there are cases where preemptive strikes are

>> incredibly valuable. i think the strike on the near vacant syrian air
>> strip was perfect. this may - or may not - be 1 of them. jury is
>> surely out, it's too early.
>>
>>> What do you expect US media to say... that Kim is crazy and first strike
>>> is the only possibility? How do you expect even more crazy North Korea
>>> to respond if they think that USA might do a first strike?!?
>>> ...The point is that Trump's attempts to escalate SHOULD be criticized
>>> by the media.
>>
>> my gosh, trump breathing is criticized by the media. sheesh.
>>
>>> This is not a man who can handle diplomacy and thus is a
>>> pretty big risk. Even 1% chance of pre-emptive strike from one side or
>>> another is not acceptable. USA should be the adult in the room, while
>>> North Korea is truly twisted country.
>>
>> bad analogy. what does the adult do when his kids throw things against
>> the wall?
>>
>>> If first strike would happen that would be devastating not only for the
>>> target but for the entire balance of fear with nuclear weapons...
>>> imagine all the nuclear states fearing the real possibility of first
>>> strike. What would that lead to...
>>> Kim is unlikely to commit mass suicide doing first strike. How about Trump?
>>
>> bob
>>
>I seem to recall (I was in High School at the time) that there was a
>time when Russia was building missile bases in Cuba that the USA
>President at the time (a certain JF Kennedy) that the president
>threatened nuclear war with Russia if they did not remove the missiles.
>The world held its collective breath and eventually Russia backed down.
>John F Kennedy was (and still is - at least by the Democrats) hailed a
>national hero.
>Now we have a Republican (and I use the tern advisedly) president doing
>almost the same to North Korea (which has actually threatened to attack
>US territory) and he gets howled down.
>Where is the consistency?

well, obviously, there isn't any consistency.

bob

[bob]

i didn't say nukes. i specifically said conventional strike. but your
irrational anger toward me read something else. :-)

bob

[bob]

he made him an offer he couldn't refuse.

bob

[bob]

On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 13:39:25 -0700 (PDT), Carey <carey...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>I think it's worth remembering who has actually used nuclear weapons.

it's true, and i hear from non american friends that since we're the
only one to have used them, we're the one to fear. that's reasonable,
i can't fault their logic or their fear.

but it was a long time ago, and none of the same people are alive so
until we make a habit of it, i think we're smart enough to use
anything like that as a last resort only.

bob

[TT]

bob kirjoitti 20.8.2017 klo 19:04:
> On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 03:02:22 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>
>> bob kirjoitti 11.8.2017 klo 2:37:
>>> but i have an open mind. there are cases where preemptive strikes are
>>> incredibly valuable.
>>
>> No. Not a pre-emptive strike with nukes. That's crazy.
>
> i didn't say nukes.

You used the term 'pre-emptive strike'... which is always used on nukes
and nukes alone.

[bob]

absolutely not. i'm talking about taking out nuclear weaopn production
and storage facilities. any old bomb can do that.

bob