It's now looking like Le Pen won't even place first in the first-round poll, and that her likely 2nd round opponent is the toughest one for her to beat.
Can you cite? I haven't seen any polls lately that have Macron beating her in round one. All of them have him crushing her in round 2, though.
Believe me, I am loth to agree with this administration on anything but, isn't he kind of right? I don't think the goose should've come out and said it like that, but yeah, they're getting way more aggressive and their missile program seems to be coming along at a nice clip. What's our endgame with these guys?
Diplomacy has failed so far but war is not desirable at all. Not only would it potentially hugely costly in lives, especially civilian lives, there is no real plan to deal with the collapse of North Korea.
Keeping plans on military strikes is prudent, and will have been US policy for years probably. Declaring that diplomacy had failed, we're exploring alternatives etc is just inviting war to come about.
It's probably some attempt to use scare tactics that won't work.
Yeah I agree, but it just seems like, (at least to my admittedly limited understanding of these things) that we're kind of running out of options? Pyongyang has no intention of scaling back or halting their missile program, China doesn't want to do anything that could destabilize the region and leave them (and S. Korea as well) responsible for the millions of refugees displaced by the Kim regime collapsing.
A straight up preemptive military strike would assuredly piss China off. So it seems like we should be trying to work with them to develop some sort of acceptable "collapse conditions" or something. I dunno man. This is super complicated and I don't trust these people to handle anything more taxing than Bop-it.
A straight up preemptive attack would piss NK off, and escalation is not something either side gets to precisely control. A preemptive strike could see artillery raining down on Seoul, and then we'd be looking at invad, ground combat, occupation etc, you can't just expect the response to automatically be proportionate. Nobody at the moment is prepared to bear the astronomical costs of reunification and that's something that could come about as the result of even a single strike because once you do that, you say "we're now using deadly force" and the basic rules of the situation change.
Don't start something you can't finish, is the theory. I guarantee you that Tillerson does not want full scale conflict, unless he's a complete moron, in which case he should stop bandying around the idea of starting on a path that could very easily lead there without the US being able to walk it back.
At the end of the day, NK solutions should be spearheaded by a decision as to whether this is a containment or reunification plan. They have always been containment; military strikes could result in a containment plan forcing a reunification situation and that's going to be rough even if it's intended as a result, never mind if it drops into the laps of the US, South Korea etc accidentally.
First, as Juggernut mentions, a pre-emptive attack on, or serious destabilization of, North Korea would seriously escalate tension with China. I don't think that can be stressed enough. Because if China gets pushed too far, then all bets are off on a global economic destabilization at best, WW3 at worst.
Second, it's going to be incredibly resource intensive (both financially and manpower wise) to accomplish anything of significance. A couple of dronestrikes aren't likely to cut it.
Third, any significant military operation is going to result in the deaths of a LOT of civilians and forced conscripts. And success, is going to result in a massive refugee state. And given the Administration's policies on refugees...
Finally, while it hasn't been proven yet that North Korea has the technology to strike the US directly, it's pretty much confirmed that NK does have nuclear technology. Given the paranoid nature of the NK hierarchy, it would surprise me if NK did NOT have some kind of scorched earth policy set up, if it looks like defeat is imminent. Now, whether that trigger would be pulled or not, would depend on several factors (devotion to dear leader, choosing life imprisonment vs death). But it is something that would need to be taken into account.
Intelligence sources told The Telegraph that both Mr Spicer and General McMaster, the US National Security Adviser, have apologised over the claims. "The apology came direct from them," a source said.
General McMaster contacted Sir Mark Lyall Grant, the Prime Minister's National Security adviser, to apologise for the comments. Mr Spicer conveyed his apology through Sir Kim Darroch, Britain's US ambassador.
Mr Spicer had earlier repeated claims that Barack Obama used GCHQ to spy on Mr Trump before he became president.
"He’s able to get it and there’s no American fingerprints on it," Mr Spicer said of the intelligence supposedly provided to Mr Obama by Britain.
"Three intelligence sources have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the chain of command - he didn't use the NSA, he didn't use the CIA, he didn't use the FBI and he didn't use the Department of Justice - he used GCHQ."
I am patiently waiting for this administration to issue an apology to any American for the various other falsehoods they've lobbed in past months.
Intelligence sources told The Telegraph that both Mr Spicer and General McMaster, the US National Security Adviser, have apologised over the claims. "The apology came direct from them," a source said.
General McMaster contacted Sir Mark Lyall Grant, the Prime Minister's National Security adviser, to apologise for the comments. Mr Spicer conveyed his apology through Sir Kim Darroch, Britain's US ambassador.
Mr Spicer had earlier repeated claims that Barack Obama used GCHQ to spy on Mr Trump before he became president.
"He’s able to get it and there’s no American fingerprints on it," Mr Spicer said of the intelligence supposedly provided to Mr Obama by Britain.
"Three intelligence sources have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the chain of command - he didn't use the NSA, he didn't use the CIA, he didn't use the FBI and he didn't use the Department of Justice - he used GCHQ."
I am patiently waiting for this administration to issue an apology to any American for the various other falsehoods they've lobbed in past months.
So... waiting for the heat death of the universe?
Foefaller on
+19
Options
IlpalaJust this guy, y'knowTexasRegistered Userregular
Needs to be the first question at the next briefing. "It's been reported that you apologized, personally, to Sir Grant over the unfounded, untrue claim you made about President Obama using GCHQ to spy on Trump. Are you prepared to extend an apology to President Obama and the American people for misleading them?"
FF XIV - Qih'to Furishu (on Siren), Battle.Net - Ilpala#1975
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
Needs to be the first question at the next briefing. "It's been reported that you apologized, personally, to Sir Grant over the unfounded, untrue claim you made about President Obama using GCHQ to spy on Trump. Are you prepared to extend an apology to President Obama and the American people for misleading them?"
Diplomacy has failed so far but war is not desirable at all. Not only would it potentially hugely costly in lives, especially civilian lives, there is no real plan to deal with the collapse of North Korea.
Keeping plans on military strikes is prudent, and will have been US policy for years probably. Declaring that diplomacy had failed, we're exploring alternatives etc is just inviting war to come about.
It's probably some attempt to use scare tactics that won't work.
the current plan of "just keep the status quo going until north korea fails on its own and then china might help us with the fallout" sucks but it beats seoul disappearing under a mushroom cloud
So I had originally typed, "Because people have put out guides on how to avoid his style of handshakes online" as a joke, then deleted it because this isn't the one-liners forum.
But I've been thinking about it for like, the last ten minutes, and the only better explanation I can come up with is that he's still pissed about the Hawaii court decision on his ban.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Trump doesn't like Merkel because she's a powerful woman, the same reason Putin doesn't like her.
Intelligence sources told The Telegraph that both Mr Spicer and General McMaster, the US National Security Adviser, have apologised over the claims. "The apology came direct from them," a source said.
General McMaster contacted Sir Mark Lyall Grant, the Prime Minister's National Security adviser, to apologise for the comments. Mr Spicer conveyed his apology through Sir Kim Darroch, Britain's US ambassador.
Mr Spicer had earlier repeated claims that Barack Obama used GCHQ to spy on Mr Trump before he became president.
"He’s able to get it and there’s no American fingerprints on it," Mr Spicer said of the intelligence supposedly provided to Mr Obama by Britain.
"Three intelligence sources have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the chain of command - he didn't use the NSA, he didn't use the CIA, he didn't use the FBI and he didn't use the Department of Justice - he used GCHQ."
I am patiently waiting for this administration to issue an apology to any American for the various other falsehoods they've lobbed in past months.
Apology tour. There's no accusation lobbed at Obama they won't eventually fulfill. By the end of this administration that Bingo card's gonna be full.
My two big worries with North Korea if we actually do take military action against North Korean military sites are:
1. Bad things happening to South Koreans in a retaliatory strike. I am not 100% clear on exactly how effective that new missile defense system will be against North Korean missiles, and North Korea did recently show it had access to incredibly deadly chemical weapons that it could definitely try to use in South Korean urban centers.
2. Bad things happening to North Koreans in a retaliatory-retaliatory strike and the likely civil war/anarchy that occurs in the vacuum of the current state. Because in case folks haven't learned, things can always get worse.
A distant third would be China deciding to pick a fight over it, but with how North Korea's been acting I honestly don't think they would so long as we didn't try to put troops on the ground.
My two big worries with North Korea if we actually do take military action against North Korean military sites are:
1. Bad things happening to South Koreans in a retaliatory strike. I am not 100% clear on exactly how effective that new missile defense system will be against North Korean missiles, and North Korea did recently show it had access to incredibly deadly chemical weapons that it could definitely try to use in South Korean urban centers.
2. Bad things happening to North Koreans in a retaliatory-retaliatory strike and the likely civil war/anarchy that occurs in the vacuum of the current state. Because in case folks haven't learned, things can always get worse.
A distant third would be China deciding to pick a fight over it, but with how North Korea's been acting I honestly don't think they would so long as we didn't try to put troops on the ground.
If there is any sort of nuclear retaliation the whole thing goes really bad really fast. An ICBM aimed at Pyongyang is difficult to distinguish from one aimed at Beijing. And NK shares borders with both China and Russia.
My two big worries with North Korea if we actually do take military action against North Korean military sites are:
1. Bad things happening to South Koreans in a retaliatory strike. I am not 100% clear on exactly how effective that new missile defense system will be against North Korean missiles, and North Korea did recently show it had access to incredibly deadly chemical weapons that it could definitely try to use in South Korean urban centers.
2. Bad things happening to North Koreans in a retaliatory-retaliatory strike and the likely civil war/anarchy that occurs in the vacuum of the current state. Because in case folks haven't learned, things can always get worse.
A distant third would be China deciding to pick a fight over it, but with how North Korea's been acting I honestly don't think they would so long as we didn't try to put troops on the ground.
If there is any sort of nuclear retaliation the whole thing goes really bad really fast. An ICBM aimed at Pyongyang is difficult to distinguish from one aimed at Beijing. And NK shares borders with both China and Russia.
The US has submarine and bomber nuclear capability. It's certainly capable of an unambiguously directed nuclear strike against NK (it would also not telegraph the attack).
The real problem is the global disaster that nuclear weapons targeted against human targets would represent in a modern context.
Merkel could explain how Germany pays all its dues and that the two percent target was created in 2006 during the Iraq War as the USA was looking for other countries to pick up the slack so it could focus more on its own huge fuck up in Iraq and was never ever a required part of being in NATO and Trump still wouldn't understand.
Yeah. Every day there's a new embarrassment. I never thought I'd long for the days of Dubya. Hell, at least he could dodge a shoe and crack a joke about it after. I feel like Trump would take it right in the face and go berserk once he saw it knocked his toupee (or whatever the hell that is on his head) askew.
My two big worries with North Korea if we actually do take military action against North Korean military sites are:
1. Bad things happening to South Koreans in a retaliatory strike. I am not 100% clear on exactly how effective that new missile defense system will be against North Korean missiles, and North Korea did recently show it had access to incredibly deadly chemical weapons that it could definitely try to use in South Korean urban centers.
2. Bad things happening to North Koreans in a retaliatory-retaliatory strike and the likely civil war/anarchy that occurs in the vacuum of the current state. Because in case folks haven't learned, things can always get worse.
A distant third would be China deciding to pick a fight over it, but with how North Korea's been acting I honestly don't think they would so long as we didn't try to put troops on the ground.
If there is any sort of nuclear retaliation the whole thing goes really bad really fast. An ICBM aimed at Pyongyang is difficult to distinguish from one aimed at Beijing. And NK shares borders with both China and Russia.
And it's not like radioactive fallout stops at a border. Just a cursory glance at Google Earth puts Pyongyang less than 100 miles away from the China border. So a nuclear strike on Pyongyang is very likely to get Beijing worked up.
| Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
Diplomacy has failed so far but war is not desirable at all. Not only would it potentially hugely costly in lives, especially civilian lives, there is no real plan to deal with the collapse of North Korea.
Keeping plans on military strikes is prudent, and will have been US policy for years probably. Declaring that diplomacy had failed, we're exploring alternatives etc is just inviting war to come about.
It's probably some attempt to use scare tactics that won't work.
the current plan of "just keep the status quo going until north korea fails on its own and then china might help us with the fallout" sucks but it beats seoul disappearing under a mushroom cloud
They don't even need to use nukes. They have enough conventional artillery aimed at Seoul to level it before anyone could do anything
Just as a sidenote, North Korean nukes are a threat against China, Japan, and (aspirationally) the US.
Against South Korea the fear isn't really nukes, it's artillery. South Korea has a much better military than NK does, if a war broke out SK could win it on their own. But they couldn't do so before NK got off quite a lot of shots on Seoul.
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
Posts
Can you cite? I haven't seen any polls lately that have Macron beating her in round one. All of them have him crushing her in round 2, though.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
Believe me, I am loth to agree with this administration on anything but, isn't he kind of right? I don't think the goose should've come out and said it like that, but yeah, they're getting way more aggressive and their missile program seems to be coming along at a nice clip. What's our endgame with these guys?
Edit: WaPo link for context
https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/world/asia_pacific/tillerson-stresses-regional-cooperation-to-curb-north-koreas-weapons-programs/2017/03/16/4ec5e07c-09ab-11e7-bd19-fd3afa0f7e2a_story.html
Keeping plans on military strikes is prudent, and will have been US policy for years probably. Declaring that diplomacy had failed, we're exploring alternatives etc is just inviting war to come about.
It's probably some attempt to use scare tactics that won't work.
A straight up preemptive military strike would assuredly piss China off. So it seems like we should be trying to work with them to develop some sort of acceptable "collapse conditions" or something. I dunno man. This is super complicated and I don't trust these people to handle anything more taxing than Bop-it.
Here's a rundown on how Merkel will supposedly approach dealing with Trump.
spiegel.de/international/world/merkel-prepares-for-difficult-visit-with-donald-trump-a-1138244.html
Don't start something you can't finish, is the theory. I guarantee you that Tillerson does not want full scale conflict, unless he's a complete moron, in which case he should stop bandying around the idea of starting on a path that could very easily lead there without the US being able to walk it back.
At the end of the day, NK solutions should be spearheaded by a decision as to whether this is a containment or reunification plan. They have always been containment; military strikes could result in a containment plan forcing a reunification situation and that's going to be rough even if it's intended as a result, never mind if it drops into the laps of the US, South Korea etc accidentally.
First, as Juggernut mentions, a pre-emptive attack on, or serious destabilization of, North Korea would seriously escalate tension with China. I don't think that can be stressed enough. Because if China gets pushed too far, then all bets are off on a global economic destabilization at best, WW3 at worst.
Second, it's going to be incredibly resource intensive (both financially and manpower wise) to accomplish anything of significance. A couple of dronestrikes aren't likely to cut it.
Third, any significant military operation is going to result in the deaths of a LOT of civilians and forced conscripts. And success, is going to result in a massive refugee state. And given the Administration's policies on refugees...
Finally, while it hasn't been proven yet that North Korea has the technology to strike the US directly, it's pretty much confirmed that NK does have nuclear technology. Given the paranoid nature of the NK hierarchy, it would surprise me if NK did NOT have some kind of scorched earth policy set up, if it looks like defeat is imminent. Now, whether that trigger would be pulled or not, would depend on several factors (devotion to dear leader, choosing life imprisonment vs death). But it is something that would need to be taken into account.
They're following W.'s footsteps like a road map.
I am patiently waiting for this administration to issue an apology to any American for the various other falsehoods they've lobbed in past months.
Inquisitor77: Rius, you are Sisyphus and melee Wizard is your boulder
Tube: This must be what it felt like to be an Iraqi when Saddam was killed
Bookish Stickers - Mrs. Rius' Etsy shop with bumper stickers and vinyl decals.
So... waiting for the heat death of the universe?
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
Ha ha Nope.
the current plan of "just keep the status quo going until north korea fails on its own and then china might help us with the fallout" sucks but it beats seoul disappearing under a mushroom cloud
So I had originally typed, "Because people have put out guides on how to avoid his style of handshakes online" as a joke, then deleted it because this isn't the one-liners forum.
But I've been thinking about it for like, the last ten minutes, and the only better explanation I can come up with is that he's still pissed about the Hawaii court decision on his ban.
Apology tour. There's no accusation lobbed at Obama they won't eventually fulfill. By the end of this administration that Bingo card's gonna be full.
Merkel's look there is already beginning to become a meme :?
1. Bad things happening to South Koreans in a retaliatory strike. I am not 100% clear on exactly how effective that new missile defense system will be against North Korean missiles, and North Korea did recently show it had access to incredibly deadly chemical weapons that it could definitely try to use in South Korean urban centers.
2. Bad things happening to North Koreans in a retaliatory-retaliatory strike and the likely civil war/anarchy that occurs in the vacuum of the current state. Because in case folks haven't learned, things can always get worse.
A distant third would be China deciding to pick a fight over it, but with how North Korea's been acting I honestly don't think they would so long as we didn't try to put troops on the ground.
He won't even make eye contact with her, so I'm leaning towards ignoring her.
If there is any sort of nuclear retaliation the whole thing goes really bad really fast. An ICBM aimed at Pyongyang is difficult to distinguish from one aimed at Beijing. And NK shares borders with both China and Russia.
The US has submarine and bomber nuclear capability. It's certainly capable of an unambiguously directed nuclear strike against NK (it would also not telegraph the attack).
The real problem is the global disaster that nuclear weapons targeted against human targets would represent in a modern context.
Merkel could explain how Germany pays all its dues and that the two percent target was created in 2006 during the Iraq War as the USA was looking for other countries to pick up the slack so it could focus more on its own huge fuck up in Iraq and was never ever a required part of being in NATO and Trump still wouldn't understand.
And it's not like radioactive fallout stops at a border. Just a cursory glance at Google Earth puts Pyongyang less than 100 miles away from the China border. So a nuclear strike on Pyongyang is very likely to get Beijing worked up.
He then blamed a "later on fox" for the wiretapping thing so the German reporter who asked the question should ask fox about it.
He literally cannot take responsibility for anything.
he said the Fox News analyst was “very talented."
The analyst is Andrew Napolitano. He was a 9/11 truther at least as of 2010.
They don't even need to use nukes. They have enough conventional artillery aimed at Seoul to level it before anyone could do anything
Against South Korea the fear isn't really nukes, it's artillery. South Korea has a much better military than NK does, if a war broke out SK could win it on their own. But they couldn't do so before NK got off quite a lot of shots on Seoul.
The guy's name is Mark Lyall Grant so they might have gotten his name wrong as well.
Trump now seems to be somewhat doubling down on the claim or at least claiming it is credible despite those assurances because of course he would.
Good on the Irish PM