|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Mar 9, 2018 18:48:06 GMT 1
He has achieved within 18 months what previous US Presidents failed to achieve in 60 Years
He has subdued N. Korea and will meet with the NK President to dicuss the disarming of nuclear weapons by NK
A Prime case of 'judge not a politician by what he says, but by what he achieves'?
Nobel Peace prize awaiting?
A far more deserving case tha Hussein Obama's Nobel Prize!
|
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on Mar 10, 2018 2:49:09 GMT 1
The N Koreans offered the talks. So do they get the Prize? Or should it be Joint? A nice photo, that.
If you threaten another state with 'fire and fury like the world has never known', you deserve a Peace Prize?
Anyway, what's all this talk of achievement? Nothing's happened yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Mar 10, 2018 10:40:20 GMT 1
Subdued? Or been scared by his own childish rhetoric into negotiating nothing with a scumbag?
NK holds the cards. They have developed some weapons which they are now apparently prepared to trade for whatever they want from the USA. Once again, Uncle Sam loses a highly asymmetric conflict that he needn't have entered in the first place.
The argument for the UK to have nuclear weapons has always been that they give us a place at the negotiating table, allow us to punch above our weight, etc. I never accepted that argument until now: a tiny isolated bankrupt dictatorship can whistle and the President of the United States comes to heel. Next week, Albania, or perhaps Lichtenstein.
However Trumpf will certainly shake tiny hands with the other evil emperor in front of the biggest cheering crowd and display of guns since Nuremberg, and consider it a Triumpf. Note that Herr Kim is not going to the USA where there are even more guns (but not under Presidential control) and Trumpf is not making a state visit to the UK where his only reliable allies loathe him.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Mar 14, 2018 17:32:49 GMT 1
Subdued? Or been scared by his own childish rhetoric into negotiating nothing with a scumbag? NK holds the cards. They have developed some weapons which they are now apparently prepared to trade for whatever they want from the USA. Once again, Uncle Sam loses a highly asymmetric conflict that he needn't have entered in the first place. Huh? You mean the Korean War? It's a deterrent, if that's what you meant by "etc." Huh?  It is a Theatre of the Absurd performance. Never grows tired! You should write for The Now Show, Alan. It could do with some fresh material. Some loudmouth virtue-signalling liberal-lefties loathe him. The same sort of people who used to love Hitler in the early 30s, and mao and Stalin always. Funnily enough, if that's your sense of humour. |
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Mar 14, 2018 21:13:10 GMT 1
So Hitler appealed to the left? I smell revisionism of the kind that even Trumpf would consider illogical.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Mar 16, 2018 18:43:58 GMT 1
So Hitler appealed to the left? I smell revisionism of the kind that even Trumpf would consider illogical. Not "revisionism" - the simple straightforward truth. He took over the German Workers Party, turned it into the National Socialist Party - the program, appeal, and membership was Socialist, the open aim for a Socialist revolution. Roehm, Schacht, Goebbels, Goering, Hess, the whole gruesome gang - all committed socialists. The left in this country - and France, and Italy - loved the Nazis, couldn't praise them highly enough. You're talking of a time when the leading British socialist intellectuals were enthusiastic eulogisers for eugenics and mass enforced sterilisation of anyone with an IQ below 70, don't forget. Hitler eliminated unemployment and increased output threefold. To do so he sank the country into such depths of debt that he had no choice but to go on the plunder before the whole economy collapsed into lieral bankruptcy of course, but the Left has never worried about little matters like that. All the same could be said for Mussolini - took over a socialist movement, and like Hitler never overtly at least changed its tune. Mosley was a socialist too - he formed his New Party and then the British Fascists because the Labour Party wasn't socialist enough. Now - could you at least make even a hint of an attempt to explain why on earth you consider yourself in any way justified to label Trump in the slightest connected to Nazism, please? Hitler. You're saying he's like Hitler. History matters, sir, to some of us. |
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Mar 16, 2018 19:28:46 GMT 1
Makes me wonder why my card-carrying communist parents got into so much trouble fighting the blackshirts. Or indeed why the Red Army bothered to slaughter their heroes. Thank you for the enlightenment. History is so obviously bunk, I don't even believe my own diary entry for yesterday..
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Mar 16, 2018 19:48:39 GMT 1
Makes me wonder why my card-carrying communist parents got into so much trouble fighting the blackshirts. Factionalism. The eternal curse of the Left - bolsheviks versus mensheviks, Blairites versus Brownites, Momentum versus anyone more serious about their work. Oh, and then they were Jews too, I presume, which was probably far more significant - as far as that particular activity went at least. A little historical event called the second world war, old chap, you may have heard rumour of it? A bit of a rumpus caused when their heroes' land-grabbing people-enslaving pact with Hitler was surprisingly betrayed? A little like when Kinnock shafted Hatton - a Labour council, a Labour council - that one. Neither would I. An avowed communist who promises to leave the country if Corbyn raises income tax on the rich? Obviously, a hoax, whatever Trevor-Roper says. |
|
It is a Theatre of the Absurd performance.