Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Back to North Korea.

They haven't been blowing hot air, they have been advancing a programme of weapons of mass destruction, namely nuclear warheads, intercontinental missiles, and nerve gas.

The problem is that conventional diplomatic or military approaches seem unworkable, or likely to lead to the most awful consequences.

I wonder if a completely off-the-wall approach might do the trick. For example, drop 10 billion $1 notes over their cities, each one tagged with a mild dose of LSD.

Too late, I think. If that whole country isn't already tripping balls 24/7 then how do you explain what the feth has been going on in NK for all these years?

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


I know right. We've never had an administration blame all the problems of the current world on the past one. Thats literally never ever happened before.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7eMcSy8wgc

Can you give the time stamp where Obama actually blames Bush? or blames anyone?

And really, you're using that for an example? During Obamas first press conference when the only thing americans were talking about was the great depression that had just started, somehow equates to all of the worlds problems?

You know that thing that happened when republicans spent the last 8 years deregulating wall street, so they can recklessly gamble with your savings, and trying to fight 2 wars without paying for them, collapsed the economy. That was clearly Bush's fault, yet oddly Obama never blamed bush, and stated he will solve this problem, and he did.

The video just wants me want that guy back in the seat of power. I don't get it. I think Frazz pulled up a video that had that headline and didn't bother watching it.

sirlynchmob wrote:
[Can you give the time stamp where Obama actually blames Bush? or blames anyone?

Let us concede that, at a minimum, there are many times when Obama referenced inheriting a mess, both in terms of the economy and the VA (which, in his defense, he totally did.)

There are more but lets pick the obvious ones no one needs to fact check and just accept it.



I think every President deserves a pass, for a little bit, on problems they legitimately walked into. That includes Trump. Of course, it's a limited pass, and it's not adequate to blame the previous admin and then shrug helplessly.

Oh, he did. The video posted just wasn't it. And I do not believe we would see an example of Obama doing it just to stick a finger in the eye without an offer or idea of what to do moving forward. Or a twitter turd. You know, acting like an actual leader with a modicum of respect for himself or those he represents.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


I know right. We've never had an administration blame all the problems of the current world on the past one. Thats literally never ever happened before.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7eMcSy8wgc

Can you give the time stamp where Obama actually blames Bush? or blames anyone?

And really, you're using that for an example? During Obamas first press conference when the only thing americans were talking about was the great depression that had just started, somehow equates to all of the worlds problems?

You know that thing that happened when republicans spent the last 8 years deregulating wall street, so they can recklessly gamble with your savings, and trying to fight 2 wars without paying for them, collapsed the economy. That was clearly Bush's fault, yet oddly Obama never blamed bush, and stated he will solve this problem, and he did.

The video just wants me want that guy back in the seat of power. I don't get it. I think Frazz pulled up a video that had that headline and didn't bother watching it.

Actually anytime I pull up a youube or such I can't actually see it. Very annoying.

 whembly wrote:
Well... confirmed that McConnell scheduled some nukage on Thursday...

Well done folks.


...

Also... looks like there were a WMD attack in Syria:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/04/middleeast/idlib-syria-attack/index.html

Geezo!

If only Mitch McConnel would have tried to talk it out.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I wonder if a completely off-the-wall approach might do the trick. For example, drop 10 billion $1 notes over their cities, each one tagged with a mild dose of LSD.

So, you are suggesting a full declaration of war (yeah, that how flying planes over every North Korean cities will be considered by their leaders, likely even before any of those plane reach any of those cities) for the huge benefit of… sending paper that people there cannot use and don't even have idea of the potential worth? In hope that… many people will get high on LSD?

Well that's quite unconventional tactics . Will you drop tons of people wearing a Donald Duck costume with a Donald Trump mask over it too? It might just make your plan even better!
[edit]Throw 2nd edition codex in German all over North Korea. Printed on marijuana leaves. With fire.[/edit]

 Easy E wrote:
If only Mitch McConnell would have tried to talk it out.

Odd that he didn't try to instead find a candidate both would agree upon, or decide that the court worked just fine with 8 justices.

So Trump sat down with the NYT for an exclusive interview. Strange that a guy who frequently calls the NYT fake news would give them an exclusive interview. Also strange that the NYT would market themselves to subscribers as a lone voice taking on government, and asking people to support their mission... and then turn around and let Trump use the NYT to repeat his outright bs.

The big part of the Trump interview is that Trump used it as a platform to repeat his lie that Susan Rice broke a law in requesting the unmasking of Trump officials talking to the Russian government. The NYT didn't point out that it was a baseless accusation that can only be maintained in absolute ignorance of the law and the role Rice performed. It gave an appearance at the very least of a contraversy around the issue, as opposed to the work of fiction it actually is.

Its almost as if the feud between Trump and MSM is largely for public consumption, and the actual relationship is a lot more complex, between a media manipulator and a for profit newspaper.


In other news, it turns out Neil Gorsuch plagiarised himself in his 2006 book. He directly copied most of Chapter 10 from a 1984 article. He also borrowed ideas and quotes from other articles without attributing them, effectively presenting it as his own work. The Whitehouse claimed the attack was false, because like the 1960s style bungling Soviet bureaucrats they so resemble, the only counter they think to anything is 'Lies!' As to whether this is actually a big deal or not... who fething knows? Whether it was sloppy or dishonest is a tough question, but also one that doesn't matter. The SC is now a political battleground, so what matters is a justice's opinion on all the right political issues. As such, Democrats will believe this plagiarism disqualifies Gorsuch, and Republicans will believe it doesn't matter at all.

 Frazzled wrote:
I think the Democrats have adopted the Republican playbook and won't vote for anything proposed by Republicans over the next term.

Yep. There's a few factors at play. The first is a simple tit-for-tat. Republicans obstructed for the sake of obstruction, and so now Democrats want to respond with the same. But that in and of itself isn't enough, because Democrats are a feeble lot at the end of the day. What's made obsrtuction not just easier but required is the unpopularity of Trump and the policies they've tried to put up.

An ACA reform bill polling at 70%+, championed by a president with approval ratings about the same, well there's going to be a lot of pressure on people to switch aisles and support that. It would take a lot of party discipline to maintain a complete block. But an ACA reform bill polling 17%, with a president with approval dropping down in to the 30s... well that isn't just easy to reject, but required.

If Trump becomes popular, and starts offering policies that people actually like, then maybe things will change. But that's like saying 'if Trump stops being Trump'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Also, is AHCA actually failing? I thought it was supposed to have stabilized before Trump?

ACA. AHCA is the idiotic mess that Ryan tried to ram through to replace ACA, that got sunk by his own party in the House.

And no, it isn't failing. That's just a Republican mantra they repeat endlessly, because they need it to be true to justify the really alternative plan they're trying to push through. It's weird to see fraz here repeating that argument, because he's told us all that he isn't a Republican, and yet he's bought in to a core Republican lie. Strange.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
If the Chinese can't see that, then they're not as smart as they're made out to be. Every nation on Earth has the right to self-defence. Not for a minute am I saying that the USA should roll over North Korea right this minute, but the USA should be handing out final warnings to NK and China.

You've touched on but not really fleshed out some really big and complex subjects. Every nation has a right to self sefence, however the idea that a nation has the right to pre-emptive action against another country for merely developing the capacity to threaten is a whole other can of worms. This was the issue at the core of the invasion of Iraq - whether Hussein's WMDs justified a proactive military response. By and large the issue was settled by the absence of WMDs, coupled with the complete balls up of the occupation.

It's a bit incredible that we're now seeing those same arguments repeated so soon after the first time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
What the hell does that even mean?

"De-operationalised". If you say it three times in a mirror and then spin around twice then it's less embarrassing that you got fired.

Yeah, Bannon was totally booted. Not from every job he holds, but it is still what it is. I was kicked off of a special project in my job once, and I've seen it happen to plenty of others and made it happen to others once or twice. You back to your regular work, keep getting paid and all that, but everyone knows what it means.

Kudos for HR McMaster for straightening this out (and kudos from Trump for selecting this guy).

It seems like McMaster came out on top in one internal battle. This is very good news, because once you lose one of these battle, you very rarely reverse that momentum.

There's stories going around that Trump's issue with Bannon is how Bannon has been portrayed as the real power in the Whitehouse. Trump was furious that Bannon was credited with setting the Whitehouse agenda, and apparently got angry that liberals were calling him President Bannon. It seems you can do anything in the Trump presidency but steal kudos away from the great orange one.

 sebster wrote:
There's stories going around that Trump's issue with Bannon is how Bannon has been portrayed as the real power in the Whitehouse. Trump was furious that Bannon was credited with setting the Whitehouse agenda, and apparently got angry that liberals were calling him President Bannon. It seems you can do anything in the Trump presidency but steal kudos away from the great orange one.

If this is true… then we should use that to manipulate Trump, shouldn't we ?

 Ouze wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
If only Mitch McConnell would have tried to talk it out.

Odd that he didn't try to instead find a candidate both would agree upon, or decide that the court worked just fine with 8 justices.

The Democrats would not have agreed to any Republican candidate for SCOTUS. Lets be real.

On this day in 1917, the USA declared war on Germany.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
On this day in 1917, the USA declared war on Germany.

On this day, today (noon EST), the US Mint is releasing the first Liberty dollar (1oz .999 gold) with an African American woman on the face.

 Breotan wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
On this day in 1917, the USA declared war on Germany.

On this day, today (noon EST), the US Mint is releasing the first Liberty dollar (1oz .999 gold) with an African American woman on the face.

US coins and banknotes have always been a mystery to me, so I can only guess that a liberty dollar is a bid deal? Especially if we're talking gold?

On the war front, it's hard to believe that a 100 years have passed since the Great War.

IMO, I think the USA and WW1 is an often neglected area, as it had profound changes on the USA and brought the nation into the modern age. The espionage act being a prime example...

If you follow the Great War channel on youtube (I highly recommend it) you'll get more videos on the subject.

As most people here will probably know, it'll be months before US combat troops are trained and ready to be deployed on the Western Front. Assuming they can dodge the U-boats and reach France! Can the Germans hold out until their divisions are rushed back from the Eastern Front?

The Syria mess is certainly a clusterfeth.

With the whole red-line debacle by Obama I think we also need to remember that Obama told congress that the military will go as soon as they give him authorization to do so. He showed weakness by punting, but congress also showed weakness by sitting on the ball.

And listening to Trump talking about how sad it is to see dead babies gassed to death just pisses me off, because those are the same babies that are affected by his ban on refugees.

Dead babies are sad I guess, but less sad than refugee babies coming into our country?

 d-usa wrote:
The Syria mess is certainly a clusterfeth.

With the whole red-line debacle by Obama I think we also need to remember that Obama told congress that the military will go as soon as they give him authorization to do so. He showed weakness by punting, but congress also showed weakness by sitting on the ball.

I prefer to think of them as prudently not getting us into another freaking war to back up his machismo statements.

And listening to Trump talking about how sad it is to see dead babies gassed to death just pisses me off, because those are the same babies that are affected by his ban on refugees. [/quote
Unless you can show they were on a waiting list or something thats a pretty asinine statement.

Dead babies are sad I guess, but less sad than refugee babies coming into our country?

Dead babies are sad. You can see them all over. That doesn't mean the US should let every man woman and child into the US. We're already letting in hundreds of thousands of refugees from Latin America every year. Should we nuke Syria now? How about Sudan, Myanmar, most of Central America, Chicago (now that I think about it) the Phillipines, when does the killing stop in your world?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
On the war front, it's hard to believe that a 100 years have passed since the Great War.

IMO, I think the USA and WW1 is an often neglected area, as it had profound changes on the USA and brought the nation into the modern age. The espionage act being a prime example...

Most definitely it is. I think that in my academic career (K-12 and undergrad) I have spent less than a total of one day on WW1 (as in, under 24 hours covering it). None of the schools I have been to offer a course that focuses on it, and many of our textbooks read something like:

"WW1 was started when Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in 1914. In 1917, American forces went to Europe and saved everyone. . . ZIMMERMAN TELEGRAM!!!!"


Like, seriously!? that isn't fething history mate.

 d-usa wrote:
The Syria mess is certainly a clusterfeth.

With the whole red-line debacle by Obama I think we also need to remember that Obama told congress that the military will go as soon as they give him authorization to do so. He showed weakness by punting, but congress also showed weakness by sitting on the ball.

Whether it's Syria or North Korea, whatever actions we decide I really hope that everyone is very clear-eyed on the costs.

Here's some good questions that I stole from the 'net:

1) What national security interest, rather than pure humanitarian interest, is served by the use of American military power to depose Assad’s regime?

2) How will deposing Assad make America safer?

3) What does final political victory in Syria look like (be specific), and how long will it take for that political victory to be achieved? Do you consider victory to be destabilization of Assad, the removal of Assad, the creation of a stable government that can protect itself and its people without additional assistance from the United States, etc.?

4) What military resources (e.g., ground troops), diplomatic resources, and financial resources will be required to achieve this political victory?

5) How long will it take to achieve political victory?

6) What costs, in terms of lives (both military and civilian), dollars, and forgone options elsewhere as a result of resource deployment in Syria, will be required to achieve political victory?

7) What other countries will join the United States in deposing Assad, in terms of military, monetary, or diplomatic resources?

8) Should explicit congressional authorization for the use of military force in Syria be required, or should the president take action without congressional approval?

9) What is the risk of wider conflict with Russia, given that nation’s presence and stake in Syria, if the United States chooses to invade and depose Assad, a key Russian ally in the Middle East?

10) If U.S. intervention in Syria does spark a larger war with Russia, what does political victory in that scenario look like, and what costs will it entail?

11) Given that Assad has already demonstrated a willingness to use chemical weapons, how should the United States respond if the Assad regime deploys chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons against the United States?

12) Assuming the Assad regime is successfully removed from power, what type of government structure will be used to replace Assad, who will select that government, and how will that government establish and maintain stability going forward?

13) Given that a change in political power in the United States radically altered the American position in Iraq in 2009, how will you mitigate or address the risk of a similar political dynamic upending your preferred strategy in Syria, either in 2018, 2020, or beyond?

14) What lessons did you learn from America’s failure to achieve and maintain political victory following the removal of governments in Iraq and Libya, and how will you apply those lessons to a potential war in Syria?

No easy answers.

I will say, however, that if Trump chooses engagement that he'd get Congressional approval.

 whembly wrote:

I will say, however, that if Trump chooses engagement that he'd get Congressional approval.

Of course he will, most of the Republicans in office are warmongers, and have had campaigns heavily "supported" by contracting companies who stand to make beaucoup bucks off of military engagement.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I will say, however, that if Trump chooses engagement that he'd get Congressional approval.

Of course he will, most of the Republicans in office are warmongers, and have had campaigns heavily "supported" by contracting companies who stand to make beaucoup bucks off of military engagement.

Better that than going at it "alone", ala Libya.

 whembly wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I will say, however, that if Trump chooses engagement that he'd get Congressional approval.

Of course he will, most of the Republicans in office are warmongers, and have had campaigns heavily "supported" by contracting companies who stand to make beaucoup bucks off of military engagement.

Better that than going at it "alone", ala Libya.

Going to need some expansion on this, so I don't have to bring up (again [again]) that Libya was a Sarcozy thing, then a Cameron thing, then a brown nosing thing until the US helped.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I will say, however, that if Trump chooses engagement that he'd get Congressional approval.

Of course he will, most of the Republicans in office are warmongers, and have had campaigns heavily "supported" by contracting companies who stand to make beaucoup bucks off of military engagement.

Better that than going at it "alone", ala Libya.

Going to need some expansion on this, so I don't have to bring up (again [again]) that Libya was a Sarcozy thing, then a Cameron thing, then a brown nosing thing until the US helped.

Declaration of War™ or AUMF (and thus the fundings) is solely under the purview of US Congress.

The President *can* start gak, but must get Congress' say after 60 days.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
On the war front, it's hard to believe that a 100 years have passed since the Great War.

IMO, I think the USA and WW1 is an often neglected area, as it had profound changes on the USA and brought the nation into the modern age. The espionage act being a prime example...

Most definitely it is. I think that in my academic career (K-12 and undergrad) I have spent less than a total of one day on WW1 (as in, under 24 hours covering it). None of the schools I have been to offer a course that focuses on it, and many of our textbooks read something like:

"WW1 was started when Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in 1914. In 1917, American forces went to Europe and saved everyone. . . ZIMMERMAN TELEGRAM!!!!"


Like, seriously!? that isn't fething history mate.

Really? Here we spent quite a bit of time on it. The teacher even had us rearrange the desks to make trenches and then would randomly shout "gas attack" or "artillery" or things like that to keep us from getting comfortable.

The concentration camp role play for WW2 went significantly worse due to certain students' enthusiasm.

How did I miss this?

Apparently Chicago, the city that's become the dictionary definition of political corruption is outsourcing their ill repute to the suburbs.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/city-elects-convicted-felon-as-mayor/ar-BBztM72?li=AA4ZnC&ocid=spartanntp

City elects convicted felon as mayor



The city of Markham, Illinois, has elected a convicted felon as its new mayor, prompting the county’s state’s attorney to vow to remove him from office.

Roger Agpawa pleaded guilty to felony mail fraud in a federal medical insurance case in 1999. He is currently the fire chief of neighboring Country Club Hills and won Tuesday’s mayoral election in Markham, a suburb south of Chicago.

By law, his felony conviction prevents him from holding some municipal offices barring a presidential pardon, CBS Chicago reports.

Cook County State’s Attorney says she will try to remove him.

“Based on his criminal history, Mr. Agpawa is not eligible to take the oath of office for Mayor under the Illinois Municipal Code,” State’s Attorney Kim Foxx said in prepared statement. “In light of his election, the Office of the Cook County State’s Attorney is prepared to file suit seeking his immediate removal in the event he takes the oath of office.”

Current Mayor David Webb Jr. said he wasn’t  happy about the controversy surrounding his replacement, but told CBS Chicago “[Agpawa] ran and he won, so the people spoke.”

Perry Browley, who lost to Agpawa in the election, told CBS Chicago he would still like to be mayor if Agpawa does not end up in the office.

“What we just want to do is to see what’s going to happen,” Browley said. We’re going to let it play out in courts.”

It’s not yet clear when Agpawa will be sworn into office. His supporters say they’re prepared to take the fight to court should he be removed.

I had a history professor that wanted to teach WWI but students rarely signed up for it but classes on WWII always filled.

Is he still incarcerated? I could see that being a problem with fulfilling the obligations of the position.

Otherwise it seems like a rather stupid law to have. If the voters want to vote someone in despite a previous conviction, what's the problem?

Just to let you know, corruption is not limited to Chicago in Illinois. You also have Springfield and Southern Illinois as a whole.

 Breotan wrote:
How did I miss this?

Apparently Chicago, the city that's become the dictionary definition of political corruption is outsourcing their ill repute to the suburbs.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/city-elects-convicted-felon-as-mayor/ar-BBztM72?li=AA4ZnC&ocid=spartanntp

City elects convicted felon as mayor



The city of Markham, Illinois, has elected a convicted felon as its new mayor, prompting the county’s state’s attorney to vow to remove him from office.

Roger Agpawa pleaded guilty to felony mail fraud in a federal medical insurance case in 1999. He is currently the fire chief of neighboring Country Club Hills and won Tuesday’s mayoral election in Markham, a suburb south of Chicago.

By law, his felony conviction prevents him from holding some municipal offices barring a presidential pardon, CBS Chicago reports.

Cook County State’s Attorney says she will try to remove him.

“Based on his criminal history, Mr. Agpawa is not eligible to take the oath of office for Mayor under the Illinois Municipal Code,” State’s Attorney Kim Foxx said in prepared statement. “In light of his election, the Office of the Cook County State’s Attorney is prepared to file suit seeking his immediate removal in the event he takes the oath of office.”

Current Mayor David Webb Jr. said he wasn’t  happy about the controversy surrounding his replacement, but told CBS Chicago “[Agpawa] ran and he won, so the people spoke.”

Perry Browley, who lost to Agpawa in the election, told CBS Chicago he would still like to be mayor if Agpawa does not end up in the office.

“What we just want to do is to see what’s going to happen,” Browley said. We’re going to let it play out in courts.”

It’s not yet clear when Agpawa will be sworn into office. His supporters say they’re prepared to take the fight to court should he be removed.

Still waiting for you to get this hot and bothered about the current administration and their corruption

So Nuclear Option is underway, and it really just makes me shake my head that the party that has been so concerned about the proper separation of powers and checks & balances over the past 6 years is now so willing to give away one of the biggest checks they have against the other two branches.

Their advice and consent power gives the Senate a significant amount of control over the Executive Branch by limiting the ability to nominate whoever they please to the SCOTUS and any rulings on Executive Branch actions in the future by said SCOTUS. It also gives them an ability to control the shape and makeup of the SCOTUS by making the Senate extremely important regardless of the political makeup of the Senate or the political leanings of the POTUS.

But now they are willing to just reduce that power significantly and reduce their ability to control and shape the court and give up their leverage over future nominations, to reduce one of the biggest checks to keep the three branches balanced, just to score a single point right now. Because once that ship is sailed, it will never ever return to port.

 d-usa wrote:
So Nuclear Option is underway, and it really just makes me shake my head that the party that has been so concerned about the proper separation of powers and checks & balances over the past 6 years is now so willing to give away one of the biggest checks they have against the other two branches.

Arguably, the GOP already made this choice a few years ago when they decided they were more interested in checking than balancing.