/tg/Station 13

Bottom post of the previous page:

The mental gymnastics that people are willing to go through to avoid attributing this in any way to Trump is staggering. South Korea is saying point blank "credit to Trump". If you think that the US is going to keep or remove troops in South Korea based on how much their president kisses our president's ass, you have a painfully naive view of the situation in the region. Even if war with China is basically never going to happen, our troops are going to be in South Korea until the end of time.

Regardless of what you think of Trump, other world leaders (and many such like your own demonfiren, Angela Merkel in a joint conference talking about Iran shortly after all the Korean war stuff yesterday) are quick to praise Trump on a rightly done slice of American interventionist diplomacy or just to get closer to the resurgent US, just like how Ronald Reagan didn't actually have to put any physical input on the falling of the Berlin Wall but got credited for being a driving part to it happening (the comparisons are striking in a sense).

Macron is a bit of a slimebag but has rapport that Theresa May in the UK so desperately craves but shadow cabinet luvvies like Sadiq khan (already practically a laughing stock to people self declared as 'woke') are making out the UK to be as hostile as possible so the visit that's happening later this year is having to be shifted around, new apparent details are its going to happen in Scotland (his home from home so to speak for multiple reasons) and he will also likely visit the Queen up in Balmoral.

Trump believes he's doing the right thing with a commitment to seeing through the piece from his statements and a good number of world leaders and the public to impart the trust of his pragmatic actions, Trump unless his hands are completely full with a full scale crisis is not going to drop this. And on a final note to kick Barry's name in the mud, all those drone strikes and a supposed as 'interventionalist policy' in the middle east are tit-for-tat covert operations, which it has emerged in the public conciousness that Obama's America was considerably less free than G.W.Bush which started the trend of these shadow-wars on terror and significant rise in power of intelligence companies & politics getting intwined, which is being seen right now with the fiasco's with the CIA.

Luke Cox wrote:The mental gymnastics that people are willing to go through to avoid attributing this in any way to Trump is staggering.

can't be referring to me

Luke Cox wrote:If you think that the US is going to keep or remove troops in South Korea based on how much their president kisses our president's ass, you have a painfully naive view of the situation in the region.

it's a global conflict due to kim's nukes
if he decides to can any programme that can deliver nukes to the us it won't be a problem for an america-first president because lmao some gooks might get nuked what do I care

So apparently Kate Middleton wore the same dress used in Rosemary's Baby

https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity- ... e-12438464

Just a coincidence? Or is it something more sinister?

I mean, I guess you could give Trump some credit for it, in the same way that if your kid smashes your old TV you can credit him for the new TV.

What I am more worried about is that Trump will convince himself that threatening other nations with nuclear warfare over Twitter is the key to global politics. We would be right back at the Cold War, which created North Korea in the first place.

I thought the explanation was that China was sustaining North Korea because NK was their source of coal, and that a trade deal was negotiated to give China the US's coal so they no longer need NK.

chinas relationship with nk is more complicated than "give us your coal".

it's an "allied" state in a region where you can count china's allies in one hand, it's also a buffer state between china and us troops.

regardless though some koreans that ive talked to about this have been pretty polar in opinions.

some are showing hopes that its going to be the start of a new era in terms of SK and NK relations whilst others have pointed out that NK is not above breaking treaties that they had made just 6 months prior all for that sweet SWEET aid money.

look over the treaty and instead look at the effects of the treaty. At the end of the day its a treaty between a country that is notoriously untrustworthy when it comes to holding their bargains so we can only evaluate the benefits of this occasion in a couple of years time.

so even if you think trump was integral in making this deal happen it's far too early to say if hes done more than make two nations write a piece of paper that can, and historically has been, disregarded.

how about a compromise
if it leads to lasting piece it's god-emperor donald's achievement
if not it's the evil gook's fault, probably because of the chinese

DemonFiren wrote:how about a compromise
if it leads to lasting piece it's god-emperor donald's achievement
if not it's the evil gook's fault, probably because of the chinese

That's not a compromise. That's the default position.

also
no
no
how could I misspell "peace"
oh wait I probably wrote this at bumfuck in the morning

So I went reading and found that north korea made similar agreements twice before in the last 20 years
Even if Trump did this, it's up to continued policy for him and whoever comes after him, and after that, and further negotiations to actually see this stuff through and get things to peace. Letting North Korea slip back under China would be a great way to throw it all away and return to the norm

It's certainly a common pattern, but they've gone well past what they've done in previous instances. Kim Jong-Un actually going to South Korea, announcing the end of their nuclear program on state televison, etc. The circumstances that led him here are a first, and so is their response. Time will tell, but North Korea is thoroughly past the point of no return.

They did not agree to denuclearization just a cease to further testing, whatever ones (prototypes, old models or anything recently devised) are still in whatever you may call a arsenal. N.K already has extremely out-dated and dire military equipment that make middle eastern goat farmers look extremely suspicious for who's supplying them weapons. The only method that they already posses nuclear weapons so far is stealing as much information and resources as they could and with ex-USSR collaborators supposedly.

They are so poor that tourists covertly taking away information about the country say they have wood gas vehicles, cars that run on firewood as main methods of transportation, likely because there's virtually no fuel to go around resorting to a technology that is bordering on a at-least 90 years old to the current day, to say that anybody not working explicitly for the state isn't entrapped in crushing poverty and wouldn't be able to afford a automobile and likely rely on what little livestock is available for driving carts.

Though researching wood-gas cars is very interesting anyway.

Complete de-nuclearization is still in the works but very likely. We still have the summit with Trump, NK has announced that they're halting their program, and they have stated that it is not off the table. Again, we have to consider the position that they have been put in. China has been whipped into line, so daddy can't save them anymore. They're cut off from Russia. There's no telling how unstable the situation is behind closed doors. What are they going to do, starve themselves to death even harder?

NK has embraced renewable fuels, clearly a superior culture.

NK will survive the apocalypse because the world ended for them at the advent of the cold war really.

Apparently it's actually referring to Louis Mountbatten though its not surprising that any french name sends alarm bells ringing through a englishman's brain.

As long as its pronounced Lew-iss and not Lou-ee

XSI wrote:So I went reading and found that north korea made similar agreements twice before in the last 20 years
Even if Trump did this, it's up to continued policy for him and whoever comes after him, and after that, and further negotiations to actually see this stuff through and get things to peace. Letting North Korea slip back under China would be a great way to throw it all away and return to the norm

Exactly.

There is precedent to this. The kim family has promised many times that theyll do x and try and reintegrate into the global market and then they suddenly do a 180 and kidnap some japs or try and build nukes.

I dont know if the son is like the father but we are talking about a man who kills his uncle using a fucking AA gun so yknow hes not above little things like breaking treaties

Yes and no. They've claimed that they're willing to negotiate before, but it was more "no more tests if you give us food, pinky promise!" and not "hey let's go to South Korea, hold hands while skipping over the border, and announce an end to our nuclear program on state television". Keep in mind that this is the same state television network that spends about half its time ranting and raving about the evil American imperialists. Kim is trying to sell this to his people, which both makes me optimistic (not an easy thing to do), and curious as to what's actually happening in North Korea to trigger this.

soon, the united northern-southern army will try to take over china and launch wwiii in the process

wait wasn't there game like this or something? I don't recall

lel

Peace and denuclearization are the reasonable goals. A lot of South Koreans want reunification, but that's a long, long ways off. The only plan I can see working is one that involves gradually acclimating the north to the modern world over the course of a few decades. And obviously Kim isn't giving that up any time soon. The prospect of South and North Korea being a unified culture is exciting though

it would be a nice change of pace, though
a world war without germany

Don't count them out yet, I'm sure they'd love to hop in when they get their Caliphate

Luke Cox wrote:lel

Peace and denuclearization are the reasonable goals. A lot of South Koreans want reunification, but that's a long, long ways off. The only plan I can see working is one that involves gradually acclimating the north to the modern world over the course of a few decades. And obviously Kim isn't giving that up any time soon. The prospect of South and North Korea being a unified culture is exciting though

What if Kim proposes to reunite... and the new Korea gets to keep the nuclear program

What if Kim wanted peace the whole time but had to kill anyone who opposed it first

Pretty retarded meme imo considering that Trump himself surprisingly hasn't tried to take credit for it. South Korea is the one sharing credit with Trump.

Lazengann wrote:What if Kim wanted peace the whole time but had to kill anyone who opposed it first

It may be so, inner north korea is extremely factionalized that's partially about what the whole deal with lining up his uncle infront of a AA gun was about and other officials being blanked out.

She resigned for misleading parliament.

Which pretty much implicates Theresa May, because the evidence that damned Rudd was a memo direct to May's desk. Considering May continued to support what Rudd was saying the entire time despite knowing about the targets is potentially also misleading Parliament herself.

Can we have Gordon Brown back please. Hell I'd even take Cameron back even though he's a Tory. Can anyone remember the last time the government was this incompetent?

Why the fuck would you want Gordon Brown of all people?

Also the question should be 'Can you remember when the government wasn't incompetent?', and no I can't.

The closest would be John Major and that's only because he didn't do much aside from eat peas

Because he was more competent than the current fuckers and less slimy than Tony Blair.

He was a PR disaster but at least he was smart and capable in running the country.

Rustledjimm wrote:Because he was more competent than the current fuckers and less slimy than Tony Blair.

He was a PR disaster but at least he was smart and capable in running the country.

He sold all our gold at the lowest point and left the next government with a memo stating "sorry there is no money left"

Malkevin wrote:

Rustledjimm wrote:Because he was more competent than the current fuckers and less slimy than Tony Blair.

He was a PR disaster but at least he was smart and capable in running the country.

He sold all our gold at the lowest point and left the next government with a memo stating "sorry there is no money left"

I believe that was the minister to the Treasury that left that note not Gordon Brown.

The gold sale was done at a bad time but it was done for a good reason. The UK currency reserves were too heavily dependent on gold at the time and reports from the Treasury itself stated that diversifying the reserves would decrease volatility weakness by 20%. Hindsight is a wonderful thing isn't it?

Everyone always brings up the gold sale as incompetency but we can only say it was bad in hindsight. At the time it was the right thing to do.

The wrong thing for the right reasons is still the wrong thing.

It was wrong only with hindsight. He had a country to look after who's currency reserves were 50% of a commodity which had been steadily losing value for over a decade.

Unless you can somehow show there was proof in 1998 that gold prices would rise after 2002 then you can accuse him of being incompetent and doing the wrong thing at that moment.

Historically, gold and silver prices have always only gone up over time.
Sure, they go down and have occasional dips, but in the end it always climbs a little higher

The only reason gold would go down permanently would be if we somehow found a massive unexploited goldmine somewhere, we could mine asteroids made of solid gold, or humanity somehow decides that gold is not really that valuable anymore after 3+ millenia of believing it to be really valuable
None of these are likely in the near future, though an enthusiastic optimist could be forgiven for thinking the last one may happen with the whole cryptocurrency thing going on

Still, gold had been decreasing in value steadily since a high in 1980.

By 1998 gold had lost over a quarter of it's 1980 value. Now at the time the UK had roughly £13 billion in reserves with $6.5 billion of it (half of it) in a commodity which had lost 25% of it's price and had no signs of changing. The selling of the gold was to diversify the reserves, which they did, nearly all the money used in the auctioning of the gold was used to buy up other currency reserves.

Rudd was in a hell of a position with that. When the lid was blown there were only two possibilities - either she did know about the targets in which case she deliberately misled parliament, or she didn't know about them in which case she's incompetent

Either way it's a career-fucking situation to be in

it's Merkel
who are her ringwraiths? is Macron Saruman?

Let's see.
Left party is meaningless and deprived of identity, Greens are meaningless and deprived of identity, SPD is meaningless and deprived of identity despite being half of the hopefully last Grand Coalition this country has seen, FDP is a shambling zombie in a really fancy suit, CSU is a baptised leech and AfD is smugly asserting they're the only reasonable choice - between fits of autistic screeching.

Democracy was a mistake

CosmicScientist wrote:For the love of god,



I know Merkle is supposed to have had professional help developing unity hands and always being the politician not wearing blue or black to any photo shoot but dear god, I didn't think the tories were embracing austerity and shared the same posture coach. Oh and that picture of May is a flattering angle; her legs are as far apart as the other two.

Gormless.

the chad stance

PKPenguin321 wrote:the chad stance

Tory power stance, every politician that attempts it usually makes a bid at claiming the seat of PM prior to actually becoming PM, though George Osbourne is a Cameron-era slimeball who now works two jobs from last i remember hearing of them as a banker and a newspaper writer, besides Theresa May who was a non-publically elected home secretary herself George had dibs on likely succeeding Cameron for the next cycle of elections before Cameron stormed out of office over his EU referendum not expecting to lose and calling it quits to eat chips in Cornwall and embezzle money in foriegn companies.

I might be quick to jump on the idea that upgrading your communities secretary to Home secretary might have been motivated by his ethnicity more than his experience, as previously they had been unremarkable and seems like a virtue signal to ease the arguement "we're not racist" in the face of the windrush scandal, but given the defence secretary is a new twit with no experience of the job and Diane Abbot is constantly picked on by the press for muddling up figures with nobody really else presentable it might have been somewhat justified to ensure that it least lands in semi-safe hands while Boris is busy being foriegn secretary committing faux-pas in one way or another.

I wonder if Jacob Reese Mogg declined or they just thought he was too white, though maybe im just biased in this respect and they lack experience for the role (ill have to re-look that up).

Fwoosh you don't actually like Jacob Reese Mogg do you.

Rustledjimm wrote:Fwoosh you don't actually like Jacob Reese Mogg do you.

In a small capacity i do, but that might just be the well presented charm offensive they're a bit like marmite.

Similar case happened in the US

Basically, bakery owner refused to specialize a cake for a gay couple, but still offered the normal selection of non-specialized cakes
Lawsuit

It's supposed to be ruled on this year, in our Supreme Court

I'm sure there's no rarity of gay cake makers that would be more than happy to make a fudge cake for a couple of packers.

Why go to a Christian one?

Would gay bakers refuse a heterosexual cake supporting the legal marriage of man and wife?