Meenzer 15531 Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 Should have gone with "boncentration bamps". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21924 Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 This will further fuel chatter about the Trump administration being holocaust deniers. Hitler's didn't gas people ffs - more alternative facts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30616 Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 Tbf aren't the Jews currently celebrating an event that never happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21924 Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 All religious texts are bollocks so yes, obvs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 5223 Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 What exactly is Spicer's background? He looks like a village idiot kind of person. I don't actually understand why Trump, if he knows he's unsuited for this (As he presumably does, deep down) hasn't hired some astoundingly competent people instead of these cretins... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21924 Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 i genuinely think he's a moron. you kind of have to be to be the press secretary for trump - you're the fall guy who has to go and face the music and defend his incoherent policies and flip flopping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21924 Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 as for trump, i was just speaking to one of our senior columnists who reckons he might have early onset dementia. apparently one of his academic friends says studies of his language show his vocabulary has been shrinking over the past few years, which is a classic example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 5223 Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 In that case maybe he'll forget that he's president eventually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohhh_yeah 2967 Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 Trump: We are sending an armada. Very powerful. We have submarines. Very powerful. Far more powerful than the aircraft carrier. That I can tell you." Rodong Sinmun: "Our revolutionary strong army is keenly watching every move by enemy elements with our nuclear sight focused on the US invasionary bases not only in South Korea and the Pacific operation theatre but also in the US mainland." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21627 Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 One nuke getting anywhere near the armada would tank it. WW3 on 2 fronts. Nice going Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 5223 Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 Is Trump actually going to solve the NK problem? I mean, is he serious? Fucking hell. Renton, fwiw, if he invades North Korea then I'll agree that he's more likely than Clinton to bring about WW3 One can only hope he has China's backing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21924 Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 that quote is classic trump. the last thing china want is a war with north korea and a stronger us allied southern korea on its doorstep. worrying times, but at least that war monger bitch isn't in the white house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 5223 Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 I dunno about that... China are no fans of North Korea, considering them to be both an embarrassment and unpredictable. The problem is that China won't want a build up of US forces on their immediate border. But if they handle it like grown ups, China and the US could just pincer NK and get it over with, while preserving the integrity of China's national border. Of course they'd probably turn it into a land grab, but there we go. Still better than the current regime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21924 Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 china doesn't want a failed state on its doorstep, nor does it want to share a border with a unified korea allied to the US. they've historically enjoyed good relations with them. xi says he wants a peaceful resolution. meanwhile, in planet trump [tweet] [/tweet] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 N.K. would starve without Chinese aid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 5223 Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 (edited) NK already is a failed state, so I don't know what that's supposed to mean? If it was absorbed into SK it would be better for China as an economic prospect. I actually think SK has the most to lose here. The last thing they want is millions of NK citizens suddenly becoming their responsibility and tanking their economy. I've heard this said a few times, it's not in SK's interests for this to happen. It is in China's, if they can do it without losing face. Edited April 12, 2017 by Rayvin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21627 Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 china doesn't want a failed state on its doorstep, nor does it want to share a border with a unified korea allied to the US. they've historically enjoyed good relations with them. xi says he wants a peaceful resolution. meanwhile, in planet trump [tweet] [/tweet] Makes me feel all warm and cosy knowing we are safe in Trump's hands. Twitter "diplomacy" ffs. Is this really the future? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 (edited) NK already is a failed state, so I don't know what that's supposed to mean? If it was absorbed into SK it would be better for China as an economic prospect. I actually think SK has the most to lose here. The last thing they want is millions of NK citizens suddenly becoming their responsibility and tanking their economy. I've heard this said a few times, it's not in SK's interests for this to happen. It is in China's, if they can do it without losing face. N.K. doctrine is to nuke S.K. if attacked. If America attacks the nuke infrastructure there will be no S.K. Edited April 12, 2017 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21924 Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 (edited) NK already is a failed state, so I don't know what that's supposed to mean? If it was absorbed into SK it would be better for China as an economic prospect. I actually think SK has the most to lose here. The last thing they want is millions of NK citizens suddenly becoming their responsibility and tanking their economy. I've heard this said a few times, it's not in SK's interests for this to happen. It is in China's, if they can do it without losing face. That's the Chinese dilemma. What's worse - a failed state or a US ally on their border? Edited April 12, 2017 by Dr Gloom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 5223 Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 What if he actually solves the North Korea issue though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 5223 Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 That's the Chinese dilemma. What's worse - a failed state or a US ally on their border? That isn't the full equation though - in the scenario we're talking about, where Trump attacks NK, it's a failed state plus war with the US against US ally on their border. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 5223 Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 N.K. doctrine is to nuke S.K. if attacked. If America attacks the nuke infrastructure there will be no S.K. I believe they'd be psychotic enough to do that, I just don't know if they'd get the chance. Assuming Trump just attacks out of the blue, they'd flatten Pyongyang wouldn't they? Given that leadership is centralised into such a small group of people, who would call for the nuclear strikes if they cut off the head? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21627 Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 What if he actually solves the North Korea issue though Do you think that's likely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21924 Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 That isn't the full equation though - in the scenario we're talking about, where Trump attacks NK, it's a failed state plus war with the US against US ally on their border. Right, which is why trump is so terrifying. China doesn't want war and regime change if it leads to a stronger southern Korea on its border. Who knows what xi will do? Who knows what kim will do? Who knows what trump will do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 I believe they'd be psychotic enough to do that, I just don't know if they'd get the chance. Assuming Trump just attacks out of the blue, they'd flatten Pyongyang wouldn't they? Given that leadership is centralised into such a small group of people, who would call for the nuclear strikes if they cut off the head? They would hit the American bases in South Korea. This is all hard wired in the command chain. It's why they have been left alone for so long because the casualty rate would be catastrophic now NK have 2 nukes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now