Trump vs. Lil' Kim - Lethal Weapon analogy

Talk politics, economics, house prices, taxation, globalisation and stuff here. Please don't fall out with each other!!!!

Trump vs. Lil' Kim - Lethal Weapon analogy

Postby toadman » Thu Aug 10, 2017 6:40 pm

"Do you really wanna jump? Do you? Let's do it, asshole."

https://tinyurl.com/y7m2b2yz
  • 6

"The core essence of Feminism; Superiority masquerading as equality." -TDG
User avatar
toadman
Administrator
 
Posts: 1628
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2014 7:11 pm
Liked: 7596

Re: Trump vs. Lil' Kim - Lethal Weapon analogy

Postby Delmore Schwartz » Thu Aug 10, 2017 7:31 pm

North Korea's Kim Jung Un versus the USA.jpg
North Korea's Kim Jung Un versus the USA.jpg (134.23 KiB) Viewed 557 times


My personal view is:
Nuke the fuckers!

Have a nice day.
  • 4

Time is the fire in which we burn

Delmore Schwartz (the original, not this internet manifestation of his ghost)
User avatar
Delmore Schwartz
MGTOW Rockstar
 
Posts: 1194
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 1:46 pm
Location: Perth, Scotland
Liked: 5738

Re: Trump vs. Lil' Kim - Lethal Weapon analogy

Postby mongolking » Thu Aug 10, 2017 7:39 pm

I'm too cruel for the nuke option. It's too short (I doubt there are any quicker and more merciful deaths than being in the same room as a detonating A-bomb. It sure beats dementia, osteoporosis and pancreatic cancer) . Same with the hit squad and a bullet.

The happiest option for me would be to capture him live and imprison him with the lowest of the low.

Then, after months or years of life as low-end jail life, ship him home to get the Saddam treatment.
  • 5

A man can be himself only so long as he is alone, and if he does not love solitude, he will not love freedom, for it is only when he is alone that he is really free.
-Arthur Schopenhauer
User avatar
mongolking
MGTOW Veteran
 
Posts: 3422
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2014 2:18 am
Location: I'm at the river
Liked: 26537

Re: Trump vs. Lil' Kim - Lethal Weapon analogy

Postby trajan » Thu Aug 10, 2017 8:03 pm

Milk-Bar Clausewitzes, Bean Curd Napoleons: In the Reign of Kaiser Don
Posted on August 3, 2017 by Fred Reed

Why do those inadequate little men in Washington and New York dream of new wars? Because the empire is near a tipping point.

Washington must either either start a war in Korea, or gets faced down by the North, its carriers ignored, its bombers “sending signals” and making “shows of force” without result. For the empire this is a loss of face and credibility, and an example to others that America can be challenged.

Iran has not caved to Washington’s threats and sanctions and clearly isn’t going to. Another strategic loss, a big one, unless–the hawks seem to think–remedied by a war. Iran wants to trade with Europe and Europe likes the idea. Worse, Iran is becoming a vital part of China’s aim to integrate Europe and Asia economically. To the empire this smelñls of death. The frightened grow desperate.

China shows no signs of backing down in the South China Sea. For Washington, it is either war now, when thinks it might win, or be overshadowed as China grows.

Russia has irrevocably gotten the Crimea, is quietly absorbing part of the Ukraine, and looks as if its side is going to win in Syria. Three humiliating setbacks for the empire. Loss of control of the Mideast would be a strategic disaster for Washington.

Continued control of Europe is absolutely vital. European governments have groveled but now even they grow restless with Washington’s sanction against Russia, and European businessmen want more trade eastward. Growing trade with Asia threatens to loosen Europe’s shackles. Washington cannot allow this.

When you have militarily stupid politicians listening to pathologically confident soldiers, trouble is likely. All of these people might reflect how seldom wars turn out as those starting them expect. Wars are always going to be quick and easy. Generals not infrequently advise against a war but, once it begins, they bark in unison. They seldom know what they are getting into. Note:

The American Civil War was expected to be over in an afternoon at First Manassas. Wrong, by four years and some 650,000 dead.

Germans thought that World War I would be be a quick war of movement, over in a few weeks. Wrong by four years and fantastic slaughter, and was an entirely unexpected trench war of attrition ending in unconditional surrender. Not in the Powerpoint presentation.

When the Japanese Army urged attacking Pearl Harbor, their war aims did not include two cities in radioactive rubble and GIs in the bars of Tokyo. That is what they got.

When the Wehrmacht invaded Poland, having GIs and the Red Army in Berlin must have been an undocumented feature. Very undocumented.

When the French re-invaded Vietnam after WWII, they did not expect les jaunes to crush them at Dien Bien Phu, end of war. Les Jaunes did.

When the Americans invaded Vietnam, having seen what had happened to the French, the thought did not occur that it might happen to them too. It did.

When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, having seen what happened to the US in a war against peasants, they did not expect to lose. They did.

When the Americans attacked Afghanistan, having seen what happened to the Soviets there, they did not expect to be fought to a slowly losing draw. They were.

When the Americans attacked Iraq, they did not expect to be bogged down in an interminable conflagration in the whole region. They are.

Is there a pattern here?

From the foregoing one might conclude that when grrr-bowwow-woofs start wars, they seldom foresee the nature of the war or its outcome. This is particularly true of military men, who seem to have little grasp of their profession. Whether anyone else could better predict does not matter. The generals do not.

Why? One reason is that war by its nature is not very predictable. Often the other side proves uncooperative, imaginative, and resourceful. Another reason is that militaries inculcate unreasonable confidence in their own powers. Troops cannot be told that they are mediocre soldiers, and may lose, that their publics may not support the war, that the other side may prove superior. Consequently they are told, and tell themselves, that they are the best trained, best armed, most lethal force imaginable. They tell themselves that they have great fighting spirit–cran, bushido, oorah. If this is so, they think, how can they not win?

Just now, the usual damned fools in Washington and New York contemplate wars against Russia in Syria, China in the South China Sea, North Korea, Russia in the Ukraine, and Iran. All of these offer superb chances for disastrous and unexpected consequences.

An attack on North Korea will be called a “surgical strike.” “Surgical” is a PR phrase implying that no civilians will be killed, that the war will be quick and cheap. You know, like Iraq, a cakewalk. This idea has little relation to military reality. The assumptions will be that American intelligence actually knows where the North’s missiles and nukes are, that North Korea is too stupid to put them deep underground, that Kim Jong Un won’t respond with a massive attack on the South, that he doesn’t have aircraft that can carry a nuke for a short distance–to Seoul, say, or a carrier-battle group, or to the barracks of the 28,000 GIs in South Korea, that the North Korean infantry could not get into Seoul, thirty-five miles away, forcing the US to bomb the South Korean capital into rubble.

Them is a lot of assumptions.

Similarly, we hear that the US military could devastate Iran. Today, “US military” means airplanes. American ground forces are small, not rapidly deployable and–if I may lapse into rural accuracy–pussified, obsessed with homosexuality, girls in combat, trans this and trans that, and racial and sexual quotas in the officer corps. The Pentagon has trouble finding recruits physically fit enough for combat arms.

People-Belly.jpg
People-Belly.jpg (26.72 KiB) Viewed 542 times

Pregnant-and-girl simulator, forced on American troops by feminists. The intention obviously is to humiliate, and they have succeeded. The problem is, first, that we have troops willing to put up with this and second, and far worse, is that the generals, who know perfectly well the effects of this sort of thing, have let the military become the playground of feminists, homosexuals, transvestites, transgenders, single mothers, and so on. They value their careers over the military.

Iranians are Muslims, not pansies and not afraid to die. They might not–I would say definitely will not–cave in to bombing. They might close the Straits of Hormuz (“Damn, sir! I was sure we could blow up all those missiles they have on pickup trucks.”) They might launch dispersed infantry attacks into various surrounding countries. Getting them out would be a hell of lot harder than letting them in.

In all of these contemplated wars, there is the belief in the Last Move: that is, that after the US defeats the Russian Air Force over Syria, which it could, Russia would throw up its hands, go home and do nothing–instead of, say, occupying the Caucasus, which it could. Always, always, the assumption is that the other side will behave as the bow-wow-woofs think it will.

People tend to think of countries as suprahuman entities with rational minds. We say, “Russia did this” or The US decided that….” Countries don’t decide anything. Men (usually) do. You know, McCain, Hillary, generals, delusional Neocons, and Trump, who is eerily similar to Kaiser Wilhelm, another stochastic military naif with a codpiece need. These massive egos are not well suited to backing down or conceding that they have made a mistake.

This egotism is important. Washington’s vanities could not accept being humiliated, not allow any country to show that resistance to America is possible.

Suppose that the Navy fired on a Chinese ship in the South China Sea, expecting Beijing to roll over as it would have thirty years ago–but it didn’t, instead leaving a carrier in flaming ruin. This is far from impossible. Carriers can be surprisingly fragile, and China has has focused resources specifically of defeating the American Navy in what it regards as its home waters. The American fleet has not fought a war since 1945. It doesn’t really know how well its weapons will work against their weapons.
ForrestalFire.jpg
ForrestalFire.jpg (10.75 KiB) Viewed 542 times

The carrier Forrestal, 1967. A single Zuni ground-attack missile was fired accidentally, hitting a plane. A huge fire ensued, bombs cooked off, 134 men were killed, and the ship was devastated, out of service for a very long time. One five-inch missile.


Times have changed. Carriers today are useful only for bombing defenseless countries. Against serious opposition–Russia and China for example–they serve only as trip wires. The carrier itself does not amount to much, but if you cripple one, you are at war with the US. This is less scary than it used to be, which is dangerous in itself, but still not something one undertakes casually.

The following news story is worth reflection:

Surprise! Boo! “The uninvited guest: Chinese sub pops up in middle of U.S. Navy exercise, leaving military chiefs red-faced”

“American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk – a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board.

“By the time it surfaced the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine is understood to have sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier.

According to senior Nato officials the incident caused consternation in the U.S. Navy.

The story clearly was not written by a student of submarines or carriers, but the incident occurred, ten years ago–and Chinese submarines are getting rapidly better.

Emotionally unable to walk away from a local defeat, Washington would have to double down, likely by bombing China. The consequences would be disastrous, unpredictable, perhaps nuclear. Things soldiers do not think about: revolution when the United States, already deeply divided with the middle and lower classes pushed to the wall financially, suffer the depression that would follow on ending commerce with America’s largest trading partner–China. The lower middle class, already pushed to the wall, having no savings, finds prices going way up at Walmart. Apple stores have no iPhones. Boeing loses Chinese orders, laying off thousands. This list could go on for many pages. The elderly will remember the civil unrest during Vietnam.

If the war remained conventional, the outcome might boil down to which population could best survive privation–the Chinese, only a generation or so removed from living hard, or America’s squealing millennials, looking for safe spaces. If the Pentagon destroyed the Three Gorges Dam, and killed several million people, China might go nuclear. Note that if a few well-placed nuclear bombs shut down food distribution in the US for even a month, people in the cities would be fighting for food on the third day, and eating each other on the fifth.

This, those absurd vanities and overgrown children in New York are playing with.
  • 4

User avatar
trajan
Established Member
 
Posts: 777
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 6:40 pm
Liked: 4340

Re: Trump vs. Lil' Kim - Lethal Weapon analogy

Postby WheelBarrow » Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:02 pm

I don't necessarily disagree with that, Trajan. What the author fails to note is that Clinton and Obama did as much to enable the Norks as anyone on this side of the Pacific. Obama gave the mullahs in Iran a pile of cash to pursue their ambitions as well, for fuck's sake. Any bloodshed due to the actions of the Norks is on their hands, IMO.

GHW and GW Bush weren't much better WRT China. GHW stood by during the Tiananmen Square uprising in 1989. GW did fuck all when the Chicoms captured some Air Force personnel in the early 00s. Our record of actually having a spine of late is rather poor.

Back to the Norks, what is Trump supposed to do? We have this mess on our hands now and the wizards of smart declare that the solution is more of the same? Dafuq? I think Einstein is attributed with a quote about that being insanity.

I agree that war isn't going to go anywhere good for us, Japan, South Korea, or Taiwan. Just like 65 years ago we would soon know on whose side the Chinese are really on (hint, it won't be ours) and then Russia is probably poised to take advantage of the situation elsewhere.

The Norks aren't some random wildcard, they've been carefully positioned on the international chessboard to take advantage of our hubris and ego. So far it is going according to plan.

Still, what is the right move? Nuclear war is unthinkable. Conventional war is unwinnable. Continued diplomacy is unreasonable.

Check mate.
  • 5

“Associate yourself with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company.” – George Washington

"A tattoo on a hot woman is like a bumper sticker on a Ferrari" -- unknown man with discriminating taste.
User avatar
WheelBarrow
MGTOW Veteran
 
Posts: 1764
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 1:55 pm
Location: Boardwalk
Liked: 8787

Re: Trump vs. Lil' Kim - Lethal Weapon analogy

Postby Delmore Schwartz » Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:30 pm

WheelBarrow wrote:Still, what is the right move? Nuclear war is unthinkable. Conventional war is unwinnable. Continued diplomacy is unreasonable.

Check mate.

Stalemate surely?

Despite my mostly humorous "Nuke the fuckers!" statement earlier, I tend to agree with both the assessment that there is no easy way forward and also with the viewpoint that none of the state actors in this have been playing their cards straight, even the USA.

My completely unprovable viewpoint is that North Korea solely exists as something between a poisoned honey pot and a canary in a coal mine for the Communist Chinese regime. It is there primarily as a distraction in the region (certainly it makes China look good by comparison), but secondly, if the US actually was (or became) the warmonger that the Russians have always said they were then North Korea would be the first to go. Certainly "Better there then Beijing" - at least to Communist Chinese thinking, anyway.

However, this is also why I believe that the nuclear technology that the North Koreans have developed is a very elaborate bluff of which the North Koreans are completely unaware. Sure the nuclear devices tested at the Punggye-ri test site in North Korea actually worked, but their yield has been described by Western experts as somewhere between pitiful and nominal. Impressive? Not so much. ;)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests_of_North_Korea

The missiles have kinda worked as well...kinda, but it is clear that they are operating at the very limits of their technical capability and that they are far too reliant upon foreign technical assistance.

I know that various other rogue states (Iran, Pakistan, etc.) have been involved in the supply of embargoed nuclear and missile technologies, but the real question is who is the puppetmaster behind it all. It certainly isn't Kim Jung Un or any of the other North Koreans, because they simply don't have the clout. So again, at a guess without any other knowledge, I suspect that it is the Communist Chinese.

I also suspect that if a live Nork nuke is ever actually flown on top of one of these rockets that it won't work, not because of technical failure (although that will be blamed), but simply because the Communist Chinese might want to make it look like the Norks could launch a nuke at Japan or the USA, but they don't want that to ever happen in practice.

I suspect there will be some non-obvious bit of Chinese technology that permanently disables the bomb if it goes above above a certain g-force (i.e. is carried aboard a rocket that is actually launched), so that the worst possible effect would be a small crater in somewhere in Japan or North America with some highly toxic nuclear debris.
  • 5

Time is the fire in which we burn

Delmore Schwartz (the original, not this internet manifestation of his ghost)
User avatar
Delmore Schwartz
MGTOW Rockstar
 
Posts: 1194
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 1:46 pm
Location: Perth, Scotland
Liked: 5738

Re: Trump vs. Lil' Kim - Lethal Weapon analogy

Postby EddieS » Fri Aug 11, 2017 1:00 am

Wars cant be truly won without boots on the ground.

Never fight a land war in Asia.

I would think most answers as to what to do with north Korea are self apparent.

Just leave them the fuck alone. If they nuke some poor cunt, nuke them back times ten.

Sometimes you have to let the dog bite you before you can justify putting it down.

Most of us have no real clue wft really goes on. Other than seeing the results of seeming incompetence. All we have is a media that is at least as untrustworthy as any ruling tyrant.

By all means make America great again. I don't see how north Korea, China or Russia is necessary for that to happen.
  • 5

the dark isn't dark
User avatar
EddieS
Grungle
 
Posts: 2918
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2014 8:03 pm
Location: Riding the Min Min
Liked: 16486

Re: Trump vs. Lil' Kim - Lethal Weapon analogy

Postby Red Coolade » Fri Aug 11, 2017 1:24 am

One thing we all forget:

North Korea can't support a nuclear economy. Think of the infrastructure and money it takes to maintain ONE research facility to manufacture and maintain nuclear weapons.

With Pyongyang with rationed electricity 12 hours out the day while the rest of the country lies in darkness, who can power, man and equip the needed hundreds of electrical plants, heavy metal and water dispensaries, transportation and distribution facilities to even make ONE bomb; then mount it to an ICBM?

What about the thousands of personnel specially trained (think; North Koreans and not Russians) to attend these facilities without being fried by radiation, heavy water, metals, while being fed/educated to produce enough weapons grade uranium weapons? Remember, 25 million, half in the military, and the rest are starving... :?

But our media leads us to believe the Norks are churning these things out like freakin' rabbits. China and Russia, two trillion dollar nuclear economies would not, and could not share this with the Norks. Heck, Iran still don't have nukes, even after Obammy tried to help them!

Don't believe me? China: 23 trillion. Russia; a known nuclear power, 3 trillion.

North Korea? 40 billion. Bill Gates and Carlos Slim combined have more money than that!!

Right. God-Emperor Trump is correct. Call their bluff, while North Korea can't even get their missiles outside the Sea of Japan.
  • 5

I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.
I Corinthians 7:8
User avatar
Red Coolade
Established Member
 
Posts: 466
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2016 4:18 pm
Liked: 2305

Re: Trump vs. Lil' Kim - Lethal Weapon analogy

Postby Slade » Fri Aug 11, 2017 11:03 pm

trajan wrote:The Pentagon has trouble finding recruits physically fit enough for combat arms.


I know a guy who is a Colonel in the Airforce, and he often teaches at the Academy in Colorado Springs. He has told me that with every year that passes the cadets are fatter and more out of shape than ever. He at age 50 is leaner and fitter than his cadets. I guess you don't have to be fit to fly a drone.

My brother lives in North Carolina not too far from some base. While visiting him I've seen some of his military neighbors head off to work in their cammies. What a bunch of fat asses.
  • 4

User avatar
Slade
MGTOW All-Star
 
Posts: 6012
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 4:33 pm
Location: Rocky Mountain West
Liked: 34313

Re: Trump vs. Lil' Kim - Lethal Weapon analogy

Postby K-Dog » Sat Aug 12, 2017 3:59 pm

Red Coolade has made a good point about North Korea (NK) being unable to afford nukes. In another thread I used the same logic combined with foreign media info to conclude that NK's missile and nuke programs are actually China's in thin disguise. If your gross domestic product is ~US$20 billion for 25 million people, and the costs of ICBMs and nukes are in trillion-dollar territory, then you can't develop such programs. It's that simple.

Nor can you so quickly perfect them, as NK purports to be doing. Evidence from NK missiles retrieved from the ocean after launch is that they have Chinese guts. The great strides in capability we see are all for show: since the missiles and nuclear weapons are actually Chinese, the safest assumption is they're ready to rock.

If I'm right, there's a huge implication: NK is a tripwire for Chinese action. If the US or anyone else moves to take out Kim or "his" capabilities, China is going to strike back hard, since we're taking out its puppet dictator and its missiles and nukes.

Over 20 years ago a Chinese general made a veiled threat to destroy Los Angeles if the US acted against China over Taiwan. Now the lamestream media in the US ignore numerous recent foreign articles discussing China's plans to nuke cities on the West Coast of the US during a conflict. Do a quick search and you'll find those articles; if you and I can do this, why can't the US media?

The US faces a mighty conundrum. Even with Trump as President, I don't know if we have any other option but to leave NK alone, unless a strike is launched from its soil. Frankly, the old Cold War–era concept of "spheres of influence" might be the most face-saving way to handle this.
  • 1

"To say that privacy does not matter because I have nothing to hide is analogous to saying free speech does not matter because I have nothing to say."—Ranome of MGTOWHQ.com
K-Dog
MGTOW Veteran
 
Posts: 1533
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 2:53 pm
Liked: 7508

Re: Trump vs. Lil' Kim - Lethal Weapon analogy

Postby Zedesky » Sat Aug 12, 2017 7:30 pm

K-Dog wrote:If I'm right, there's a huge implication: NK is a tripwire for Chinese action. If the US or anyone else moves to take out Kim or "his" capabilities, China is going to strike back hard, since we're taking out its puppet dictator and its missiles and nukes.


Funny you say that, China signaled via this newspaper close to the government in Beijing that: (1) If North Korea attacks the United States and/or its allies, it will be left alone to its fate; (2) IF THE UNITED STATES ATTACKS NORTH KOREA FIRST, CHINA WILL INTERVENE ON THE SIDE OF NORTH KOREA.

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1060791.shtml

China can not be happier with Korea being partitioned into two countries. It suits their interests best and North Korea is a perfect buffer. That is why they China got involved in the Korean war.

Moreover, China is said to have offered Russia a military alliance similar to NATO in the past week or so. The information is not confirmed, but may well be true.
  • 3

Zedesky
Established Member
 
Posts: 497
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 11:23 pm
Liked: 2440

Re: Trump vs. Lil' Kim - Lethal Weapon analogy

Postby WheelBarrow » Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:33 pm

Zedesky wrote:
K-Dog wrote:If I'm right, there's a huge implication: NK is a tripwire for Chinese action. If the US or anyone else moves to take out Kim or "his" capabilities, China is going to strike back hard, since we're taking out its puppet dictator and its missiles and nukes.


Funny you say that, China signaled via this newspaper close to the government in Beijing that: (1) If North Korea attacks the United States and/or its allies, it will be left alone to its fate; (2) IF THE UNITED STATES ATTACKS NORTH KOREA FIRST, CHINA WILL INTERVENE ON THE SIDE OF NORTH KOREA.


The wildcard is Kim. It's quite possible that he thinks that China has his back no matter what and will opt to go rogue.
  • 2

“Associate yourself with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company.” – George Washington

"A tattoo on a hot woman is like a bumper sticker on a Ferrari" -- unknown man with discriminating taste.
User avatar
WheelBarrow
MGTOW Veteran
 
Posts: 1764
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 1:55 pm
Location: Boardwalk
Liked: 8787

Re: Trump vs. Lil' Kim - Lethal Weapon analogy

Postby The Signal » Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:44 pm

WheelBarrow wrote:
Zedesky wrote:
K-Dog wrote:If I'm right, there's a huge implication: NK is a tripwire for Chinese action. If the US or anyone else moves to take out Kim or "his" capabilities, China is going to strike back hard, since we're taking out its puppet dictator and its missiles and nukes.


Funny you say that, China signaled via this newspaper close to the government in Beijing that: (1) If North Korea attacks the United States and/or its allies, it will be left alone to its fate; (2) IF THE UNITED STATES ATTACKS NORTH KOREA FIRST, CHINA WILL INTERVENE ON THE SIDE OF NORTH KOREA.


The wildcard is Kim. It's quite possible that he thinks that China has his back no matter what and will opt to go rogue.


I think he does. I think his notion is that they need him more than he needs them and he can just do whatever he wants with relative impunity from Beijing. And I think he's probably right about that. He had his own family members assassinated, right? Right. Well, what happened? Nothing, it would seem. So where's the bright red line from Beijing that he flat out cannot cross? It's not clear there is one.
  • 2

Feminism means we only ever blame one sex for anything.
User avatar
The Signal
MGTOW Rockstar
 
Posts: 1710
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2016 8:06 pm
Liked: 9673


Return to Politics and Economics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Reputation System ©'