dagblog - Comments for "Talking Tough & Carrying a Radioactive Stick"

Lulu, the Norks dog & pony

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 18 Oct 2020 07:09:39 +0000

In reply to

Lulu, the Norks dog & pony

Any response, or we just assume it's all fluff and doesn't matter?

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/17/asia/north-korea-kim-jong-un-parade-i...

Humans aren't very smart. Are

ocean-kat — Sat, 17 Oct 2020 04:45:44 +0000

In reply to That is funny. Seriously. You

Humans aren't very smart. Are you seriously going to tell me that the common man is going to react to situations and news with base instincts and tribalism instead of knowledge and rational thought as if that's a revelation? I learned that people are stupid way back in elementary school when everyone was trying to cheat off my test paper. I made a conscious decision when I was about 7 to reject the system and let them. I decided I wasn't going to compete. I wasn't going to care about my grades compared to theirs. I held to that decision until I graduated high school.

You think I don't know how the common man will react to people who disagree with them? My best friend's husband turned into a screaming mad man when I told him I was against invading Iraq and attempted to explain why. He actually did tell me I hated America. He kicked me out of the house and told me never to return.

I completely agree with every thing you posted. Most people are morons and never read or study to attempt to improve themselves. They are both unintelligent and ignorant. But I thought we were better than the average here. I thought the people here started with a little more intelligence and ability for rational thought. I thought we honed that by reading to increase our base of knowledge.

I'm not sure what your point is in telling me how the common man will react. I'm not much interested in how the common man will react beyond the interest an anthropologist might have in the tribe he's studying.

We've been deterring Russian

PeraclesPlease — Sat, 17 Oct 2020 04:29:18 +0000

In reply to What form of reaction to

We've been deterring Russian and Chinese expansion since the 50's with these shows and actual deployments, and for some reason it hasn't caused a nuclear war. At one point a bunch more countries in Europe spoke Russian because the Russians kept pushing west. Those days largely ended in 1989. Europe is largely at peace. Russia ripping off pieces of Ukraine or threatening Europe with cutting off gas or trying to overthrow the government of Montenegro or poisoning Brits on British soil don't encourage peace, does it? So fucking bitch about their fucked up actions for once so we know you're not only concerned that we might try to defend ourselves and others. Russia just claimed a major breakthrough in its nuclear capabilities - did you post that, complain what a threat to peace it is? We tried building North Korea energy reactors for peace and they're still playing nuke missile poker - should we just let them fire missiles over Japan? I mean, deploying a show of nuclear forces without intent to use them immediately is kind of the whole point of deterrence, not aggression, no?

What form of reaction to

A Guy Called LULU — Sat, 17 Oct 2020 04:14:21 +0000

In reply to Wasn't Putin stealing the

What form of reaction to address that Russian fuckery do you suggest? Let those bombers continue on the mission they are practicing for?

Wasn't Putin stealing the

PeraclesPlease — Sat, 17 Oct 2020 04:03:43 +0000

In reply to That is funny. Seriously. You

Wasn't Putin stealing the Azov sea provocative? Maybe cause a nuclear war? Russians radiation poisoning Brits & Russians in Salisbury? I just don't see a serious attempt to address Russian fuckery, whether it's both sides do it or not.

That is funny. Seriously. You

A Guy Called LULU — Sat, 17 Oct 2020 03:57:49 +0000

In reply to There's the rub. If both

That is funny. You are funny. Seriously. Have you been reading comments here for long? You say that a “good” article would point out that both sides do it. I think that if tomorrow a group of nuclear capable Russian or Chinese bombers with fighter escort began flying towards the U.S. border and got close enough on multiple occasions to wipe out forty or fifty U.S. cities it would make a big stink and we would hear about the unacceptable aggressive actions in bold print and loud angry voices and there would be demands made to do something about it. So sure, I agree wholeheartedly that putting information in its proper context is always cool, especially when one side is being criticized hypocritically for what both sides do, so the next time Russia is being demonized as uniquely evil for something they did, but which both sides in fact do, and someone points out that it should be noted that both sides do it and they do so in order to provide important context for judging the situation, observe how quickly that person is denigrated for both-side-ism and called a Putin apologist and a hater of America with the spice of a few salacious x-rated adjectives applied to their person. Ask me how I know to expect that reaction.

There's the rub. If both

ocean-kat — Fri, 16 Oct 2020 22:19:32 +0000

In reply to Oh these guys were all

There's the rub. If both sides do it in relatively equal amounts isn't that the issue? A good article on this subject would tell the story that both sides do it. Not that America and her allies do it. And what is the proposed solution, unilateral disarmament?

Oh these guys were all

PeraclesPlease — Fri, 16 Oct 2020 21:56:53 +0000

In reply to I certainly don't accept that

Oh these guys were all fretting over anything Nuland said, and not giving Putin Donna's or Crimea would lead to World War, etc. It's always too much for the West to project power, no prob for Pootie to use a bit of Novichok or back Syria's use of chemical weapons, plus undermining elections? "Both sides do it!!!" Bwa-ha-ha.

I certainly don't accept that

ocean-kat — Fri, 16 Oct 2020 21:29:41 +0000

In reply to Either this isn't an

I certainly don't accept that I must agree to do so only in context of an over reaching assertion you make which is off-point to the subject of the article.

What ever the point you or I want to make it must be discussed within the context of the facts. And the facts are that this isn't an American mission but done with the full cooperation and support of European allies. The problem I have with the article and why I dismiss it is because it quite deliberately down plays that fact. We can't have a rational discussion of our subjective analysis unless we can agree on the basic facts. And since we never do we never have a rational discussion.

Either this isn't an

A Guy Called LULU — Fri, 16 Oct 2020 21:07:44 +0000

In reply to Yes, Russia was the target

Either this isn't an escalation, it's SOP, or there is intelligence about Russia sufficient for NATO, i.e. most European nations, to fully endorse the operations.

History shows that it is not SOP but it isn't unusual either. Gunboat diplomacy is as old as gunboats. I am not arguing, and neither did the article, that allied nations do not support the operations. That is not the point. The point is to inform as to what is happening and what dangers it creates.

If we're going to discuss this it has to be in the context of full cooperation and support of European allies and not in the context of an American mission.

We do not have to discuss it but if we do I certainly don't accept that I must agree to do so only in context of an over reaching assertion you make which is off-point to the subject of the article.