Discussion:
TrumpTalk
(too old to reply)
Tony Cooper
2017-04-13 20:51:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Coming up with a Trump statement that doesn't make sense is too much
like shooting the proverbial fish in a proverbial barrel, but this one
caught my eye:

"The way you're going to make a good trade deal is to help us with
North Korea, otherwise we're just going to go it alone. That will be
all right, too. But going it alone means going it with a lot of other
nations.".

President Donald Trump to President Xi Jinping.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Harrison Hill
2017-04-13 21:32:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
Coming up with a Trump statement that doesn't make sense is too much
like shooting the proverbial fish in a proverbial barrel, but this one
"The way you're going to make a good trade deal is to help us with
North Korea, otherwise we're just going to go it alone. That will be
all right, too. But going it alone means going it with a lot of other
nations.".
President Donald Trump to President Xi Jinping.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
It makes perfect sense. "Going it alone" means going it
alone now, on the understanding that "a lot of other nations"
will join in later.

The huge bomb dropped on ISIS today in Afghanistan, is surely
heading North Korea's way soon :(
Peter T. Daniels
2017-04-13 21:50:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Tony Cooper
Coming up with a Trump statement that doesn't make sense is too much
like shooting the proverbial fish in a proverbial barrel, but this one
"The way you're going to make a good trade deal is to help us with
North Korea, otherwise we're just going to go it alone. That will be
all right, too. But going it alone means going it with a lot of other
nations.".
President Donald Trump to President Xi Jinping.
It makes perfect sense. "Going it alone" means going it
alone now, on the understanding that "a lot of other nations"
will join in later.
The huge bomb dropped on ISIS today in Afghanistan, is surely
heading North Korea's way soon :(
China abstained from, rather than vetoing, the Security Council resolution
condemning Syria's poison gas attack. The only vetoer now is Russia.
Tony Cooper
2017-04-13 22:50:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 14:32:27 -0700 (PDT), Harrison Hill
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Tony Cooper
Coming up with a Trump statement that doesn't make sense is too much
like shooting the proverbial fish in a proverbial barrel, but this one
"The way you're going to make a good trade deal is to help us with
North Korea, otherwise we're just going to go it alone. That will be
all right, too. But going it alone means going it with a lot of other
nations.".
President Donald Trump to President Xi Jinping.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
It makes perfect sense. "Going it alone" means going it
alone now, on the understanding that "a lot of other nations"
will join in later.
How do you come to that conclusion? Are you somehow under the
impression that Trump can persuade/force other nations to join with
the US at a future time?
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter T. Daniels
2017-04-14 03:13:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 14:32:27 -0700 (PDT), Harrison Hill
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Tony Cooper
Coming up with a Trump statement that doesn't make sense is too much
like shooting the proverbial fish in a proverbial barrel, but this one
"The way you're going to make a good trade deal is to help us with
North Korea, otherwise we're just going to go it alone. That will be
all right, too. But going it alone means going it with a lot of other
nations.".
President Donald Trump to President Xi Jinping.
It makes perfect sense. "Going it alone" means going it
alone now, on the understanding that "a lot of other nations"
will join in later.
How do you come to that conclusion? Are you somehow under the
impression that Trump can persuade/force other nations to join with
the US at a future time?
Well, _someone_ persuaded China not to block the condemnation of Assad. And
suddenly Donnie-John isn't so friendly toward Vlad.
Tony Cooper
2017-04-14 12:24:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 20:13:14 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 14:32:27 -0700 (PDT), Harrison Hill
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Tony Cooper
Coming up with a Trump statement that doesn't make sense is too much
like shooting the proverbial fish in a proverbial barrel, but this one
"The way you're going to make a good trade deal is to help us with
North Korea, otherwise we're just going to go it alone. That will be
all right, too. But going it alone means going it with a lot of other
nations.".
President Donald Trump to President Xi Jinping.
It makes perfect sense. "Going it alone" means going it
alone now, on the understanding that "a lot of other nations"
will join in later.
How do you come to that conclusion? Are you somehow under the
impression that Trump can persuade/force other nations to join with
the US at a future time?
Well, _someone_ persuaded China not to block the condemnation of Assad. And
suddenly Donnie-John isn't so friendly toward Vlad.
That was not a concession of any importance. China knew that Russia
would veto, so their abstention had zero impact. It was, at best, a
minor sop to Trump.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
CDB
2017-04-14 13:24:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
Coming up with a Trump statement that doesn't make sense is too
much like shooting the proverbial fish in a proverbial barrel,
"The way you're going to make a good trade deal is to help us
with North Korea, otherwise we're just going to go it alone.
That will be all right, too. But going it alone means going it
with a lot of other nations.".
President Donald Trump to President Xi Jinping. -- Tony Cooper -
Orlando, Florida
It makes perfect sense. "Going it alone" means going it alone now,
on the understanding that "a lot of other nations" will join in
later.
How do you come to that conclusion? Are you somehow under the
impression that Trump can persuade/force other nations to join with
the US at a future time?
I got the impression that, by "alone", Trump meant "without China".
There are "a lot of other nations" (than China) in NATO, which may
explain its recent rise in his esteem.
Sam Plusnet
2017-04-15 00:11:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by CDB
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
Coming up with a Trump statement that doesn't make sense is too
much like shooting the proverbial fish in a proverbial barrel,
"The way you're going to make a good trade deal is to help us
with North Korea, otherwise we're just going to go it alone.
That will be all right, too. But going it alone means going it
with a lot of other nations.".
President Donald Trump to President Xi Jinping. -- Tony Cooper -
Orlando, Florida
It makes perfect sense. "Going it alone" means going it alone now,
on the understanding that "a lot of other nations" will join in
later.
How do you come to that conclusion? Are you somehow under the
impression that Trump can persuade/force other nations to join with
the US at a future time?
I got the impression that, by "alone", Trump meant "without China".
There are "a lot of other nations" (than China) in NATO, which may
explain its recent rise in his esteem.
NATO = North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
--
Sam Plusnet
CDB
2017-04-15 01:04:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by CDB
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
Coming up with a Trump statement that doesn't make sense is
too much like shooting the proverbial fish in a proverbial
"The way you're going to make a good trade deal is to help us
with North Korea, otherwise we're just going to go it alone.
That will be all right, too. But going it alone means going
it with a lot of other nations.".
President Donald Trump to President Xi Jinping. -- Tony
Cooper - Orlando, Florida
It makes perfect sense. "Going it alone" means going it alone
now, on the understanding that "a lot of other nations" will
join in later.
How do you come to that conclusion? Are you somehow under the
impression that Trump can persuade/force other nations to join
with the US at a future time?
I got the impression that, by "alone", Trump meant "without China".
There are "a lot of other nations" (than China) in NATO, which may
explain its recent rise in his esteem.
NATO = North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
TRUMP: four out of five letters can't be wrong.
occam
2017-04-14 14:13:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 14:32:27 -0700 (PDT), Harrison Hill
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Tony Cooper
Coming up with a Trump statement that doesn't make sense is too much
like shooting the proverbial fish in a proverbial barrel, but this one
"The way you're going to make a good trade deal is to help us with
North Korea, otherwise we're just going to go it alone. That will be
all right, too. But going it alone means going it with a lot of other
nations.".
President Donald Trump to President Xi Jinping.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
It makes perfect sense. "Going it alone" means going it
alone now, on the understanding that "a lot of other nations"
will join in later.
How do you come to that conclusion? Are you somehow under the
impression that Trump can persuade/force other nations to join with
the US at a future time?
Now that NATO is no longer an 'obsolete' organisation (according to
Trumps latest U-turn) he is probably counting on support from member
states?

His statement does not make English sense, but wait till it goes through
Google translate and comes out in Mandarin. Then it will make a whole
different kind of sense.
Harrison Hill
2017-04-14 16:46:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by occam
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 14:32:27 -0700 (PDT), Harrison Hill
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Tony Cooper
Coming up with a Trump statement that doesn't make sense is too much
like shooting the proverbial fish in a proverbial barrel, but this one
"The way you're going to make a good trade deal is to help us with
North Korea, otherwise we're just going to go it alone. That will be
all right, too. But going it alone means going it with a lot of other
nations.".
President Donald Trump to President Xi Jinping.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
It makes perfect sense. "Going it alone" means going it
alone now, on the understanding that "a lot of other nations"
will join in later.
How do you come to that conclusion? Are you somehow under the
impression that Trump can persuade/force other nations to join with
the US at a future time?
Now that NATO is no longer an 'obsolete' organisation (according to
Trumps latest U-turn) he is probably counting on support from member
states?
His statement does not make English sense, but wait till it goes through
Google translate and comes out in Mandarin. Then it will make a whole
different kind of sense.
His message seems (to me) to be:

If you are a member of NATO (or of the World in general), you
need to share the responsibility for keeping it running smoothly.
You need to share the costs. If America is the police force, then
the world needs to pay the police force to keep us all safe.

Barnes Wallace's "Earthquake Bomb" may not frighten Kim Jong Un,
but the bomb they have just dropped on ISIS will. There truly is
no hiding place; a hiding place is the most dangerous place to be.
Sam Plusnet
2017-04-15 00:16:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by occam
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 14:32:27 -0700 (PDT), Harrison Hill
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Tony Cooper
Coming up with a Trump statement that doesn't make sense is too much
like shooting the proverbial fish in a proverbial barrel, but this one
"The way you're going to make a good trade deal is to help us with
North Korea, otherwise we're just going to go it alone. That will be
all right, too. But going it alone means going it with a lot of other
nations.".
President Donald Trump to President Xi Jinping.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
It makes perfect sense. "Going it alone" means going it
alone now, on the understanding that "a lot of other nations"
will join in later.
How do you come to that conclusion? Are you somehow under the
impression that Trump can persuade/force other nations to join with
the US at a future time?
Now that NATO is no longer an 'obsolete' organisation (according to
Trumps latest U-turn) he is probably counting on support from member
states?
His statement does not make English sense, but wait till it goes through
Google translate and comes out in Mandarin. Then it will make a whole
different kind of sense.
If you are a member of NATO (or of the World in general), you
need to share the responsibility for keeping it running smoothly.
You need to share the costs. If America is the police force, then
the world needs to pay the police force to keep us all safe.
Barnes Wallace's "Earthquake Bomb" may not frighten Kim Jong Un,
but the bomb they have just dropped on ISIS will. There truly is
no hiding place; a hiding place is the most dangerous place to be.
I can't decide if that bomb was just a piece of Trump arm-waving for
domestic consumption - or simply that the military have had that thing
for years but have never been allowed to use it before now.

"We have this great bomb Mr President. The biggest, the best. No
question. It's beautiful."
--
Sam Plusnet
J. J. Lodder
2017-04-16 18:26:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by occam
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 14:32:27 -0700 (PDT), Harrison Hill
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Tony Cooper
Coming up with a Trump statement that doesn't make sense is too much
like shooting the proverbial fish in a proverbial barrel, but this one
"The way you're going to make a good trade deal is to help us with
North Korea, otherwise we're just going to go it alone. That will be
all right, too. But going it alone means going it with a lot of other
nations.".
President Donald Trump to President Xi Jinping.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
It makes perfect sense. "Going it alone" means going it
alone now, on the understanding that "a lot of other nations"
will join in later.
How do you come to that conclusion? Are you somehow under the
impression that Trump can persuade/force other nations to join with
the US at a future time?
Now that NATO is no longer an 'obsolete' organisation (according to
Trumps latest U-turn) he is probably counting on support from member
states?
His statement does not make English sense, but wait till it goes through
Google translate and comes out in Mandarin. Then it will make a whole
different kind of sense.
If you are a member of NATO (or of the World in general), you
need to share the responsibility for keeping it running smoothly.
You need to share the costs. If America is the police force, then
the world needs to pay the police force to keep us all safe.
Barnes Wallace's "Earthquake Bomb" may not frighten Kim Jong Un,
but the bomb they have just dropped on ISIS will. There truly is
no hiding place; a hiding place is the most dangerous place to be.
I can't decide if that bomb was just a piece of Trump arm-waving for
domestic consumption - or simply that the military have had that thing
for years but have never been allowed to use it before now.
It is an exampleof a thermobaric weapon.
(a fuel-air explosion)
These have been around for 50 years or so.

This one is just bigger,

Jan
Sam Plusnet
2017-04-16 22:29:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by occam
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 14:32:27 -0700 (PDT), Harrison Hill
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Tony Cooper
Coming up with a Trump statement that doesn't make sense is too much
like shooting the proverbial fish in a proverbial barrel, but this one
"The way you're going to make a good trade deal is to help us with
North Korea, otherwise we're just going to go it alone. That will be
all right, too. But going it alone means going it with a lot of other
nations.".
President Donald Trump to President Xi Jinping.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
It makes perfect sense. "Going it alone" means going it
alone now, on the understanding that "a lot of other nations"
will join in later.
How do you come to that conclusion? Are you somehow under the
impression that Trump can persuade/force other nations to join with
the US at a future time?
Now that NATO is no longer an 'obsolete' organisation (according to
Trumps latest U-turn) he is probably counting on support from member
states?
His statement does not make English sense, but wait till it goes through
Google translate and comes out in Mandarin. Then it will make a whole
different kind of sense.
If you are a member of NATO (or of the World in general), you
need to share the responsibility for keeping it running smoothly.
You need to share the costs. If America is the police force, then
the world needs to pay the police force to keep us all safe.
Barnes Wallace's "Earthquake Bomb" may not frighten Kim Jong Un,
but the bomb they have just dropped on ISIS will. There truly is
no hiding place; a hiding place is the most dangerous place to be.
I can't decide if that bomb was just a piece of Trump arm-waving for
domestic consumption - or simply that the military have had that thing
for years but have never been allowed to use it before now.
It is an exampleof a thermobaric weapon.
(a fuel-air explosion)
These have been around for 50 years or so.
This one is just bigger,
True, but this one has been in the inventory since 2003 (according to
the Wiki article I checked) yet it has never been used - until the
moment Trump decides to reverse his previous attitude and bomb Syria.

That may just be a stunning coincidence - but one might be forgiven for
assuming otherwise.
--
Sam Plusnet
Peter Moylan
2017-04-15 15:14:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by occam
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 14:32:27 -0700 (PDT), Harrison Hill
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Tony Cooper
Coming up with a Trump statement that doesn't make sense is too much
like shooting the proverbial fish in a proverbial barrel, but this one
"The way you're going to make a good trade deal is to help us with
North Korea, otherwise we're just going to go it alone. That will be
all right, too. But going it alone means going it with a lot of other
nations.".
President Donald Trump to President Xi Jinping.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
It makes perfect sense. "Going it alone" means going it
alone now, on the understanding that "a lot of other nations"
will join in later.
How do you come to that conclusion? Are you somehow under the
impression that Trump can persuade/force other nations to join with
the US at a future time?
Now that NATO is no longer an 'obsolete' organisation (according to
Trumps latest U-turn) he is probably counting on support from member
states?
His statement does not make English sense, but wait till it goes through
Google translate and comes out in Mandarin. Then it will make a whole
different kind of sense.
If you are a member of NATO (or of the World in general), you
need to share the responsibility for keeping it running smoothly.
You need to share the costs. If America is the police force, then
the world needs to pay the police force to keep us all safe.
i.,e that you need to pay the price for maintaining US imperialism.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Jerry Friedman
2017-04-14 18:01:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by occam
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 14:32:27 -0700 (PDT), Harrison Hill
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Tony Cooper
Coming up with a Trump statement that doesn't make sense is too much
like shooting the proverbial fish in a proverbial barrel, but this one
"The way you're going to make a good trade deal is to help us with
North Korea, otherwise we're just going to go it alone. That will be
all right, too. But going it alone means going it with a lot of other
nations.".
President Donald Trump to President Xi Jinping.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
It makes perfect sense. "Going it alone" means going it
alone now, on the understanding that "a lot of other nations"
will join in later.
How do you come to that conclusion? Are you somehow under the
impression that Trump can persuade/force other nations to join with
the US at a future time?
Now that NATO is no longer an 'obsolete' organisation (according to
Trumps latest U-turn) he is probably counting on support from member
states?
I think he's counting on present support from Japan and South Korea.
Post by occam
His statement does not make English sense,
There's that.

but wait till it goes through
Post by occam
Google translate and comes out in Mandarin. Then it will make a whole
different kind of sense.
Hm.
--
Jerry Friedman
Sam Plusnet
2017-04-15 00:09:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
Coming up with a Trump statement that doesn't make sense is too much
like shooting the proverbial fish in a proverbial barrel, but this one
"The way you're going to make a good trade deal is to help us with
North Korea, otherwise we're just going to go it alone. That will be
all right, too. But going it alone means going it with a lot of other
nations.".
President Donald Trump to President Xi Jinping.
Have you thought about the poor interpreter who has to (attempt to)
render that lot into some coherent form?

"This man's an idiot. He's blethering on but saying nothing."
--
Sam Plusnet
Jerry Friedman
2017-04-15 02:17:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Tony Cooper
Coming up with a Trump statement that doesn't make sense is too much
like shooting the proverbial fish in a proverbial barrel, but this one
"The way you're going to make a good trade deal is to help us with
North Korea, otherwise we're just going to go it alone. That will be
all right, too. But going it alone means going it with a lot of other
nations.".
President Donald Trump to President Xi Jinping.
Have you thought about the poor interpreter who has to (attempt to)
render that lot into some coherent form?
"This man's an idiot. He's blethering on but saying nothing."
The interpreter just has to render "go it alone" as "go on without you".
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter Moylan
2017-04-15 15:27:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Tony Cooper
Coming up with a Trump statement that doesn't make sense is too much
like shooting the proverbial fish in a proverbial barrel, but this one
"The way you're going to make a good trade deal is to help us with
North Korea, otherwise we're just going to go it alone. That will be
all right, too. But going it alone means going it with a lot of other
nations.".
President Donald Trump to President Xi Jinping.
Have you thought about the poor interpreter who has to (attempt to)
render that lot into some coherent form?
"This man's an idiot. He's blethering on but saying nothing."
The interpreter just has to render "go it alone" as "go on without you".
The poor Sean whatsisname has to deal with contradictory statements, as
usual. The overall intent is that Trump intends to fight a war on two
fronts. On the Korean front, the plan is to bomb North Korea back into
the stone age, in retaliation for which South Korea will be bombed back
into the stone age. In the middle east, the plan is first to neutralise
Assad, then to neutralise Saddam's opposition, then to leave Islamic
state in control.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
David Kleinecke
2017-04-15 17:28:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Tony Cooper
Coming up with a Trump statement that doesn't make sense is too much
like shooting the proverbial fish in a proverbial barrel, but this one
"The way you're going to make a good trade deal is to help us with
North Korea, otherwise we're just going to go it alone. That will be
all right, too. But going it alone means going it with a lot of other
nations.".
President Donald Trump to President Xi Jinping.
Have you thought about the poor interpreter who has to (attempt to)
render that lot into some coherent form?
"This man's an idiot. He's blethering on but saying nothing."
The interpreter just has to render "go it alone" as "go on without you".
The poor Sean whatsisname has to deal with contradictory statements, as
usual. The overall intent is that Trump intends to fight a war on two
fronts. On the Korean front, the plan is to bomb North Korea back into
the stone age, in retaliation for which South Korea will be bombed back
into the stone age. In the middle east, the plan is first to neutralise
Assad, then to neutralise Saddam's opposition, then to leave Islamic
state in control.
I thought he intended to bomb Syria back into the stone age
too and if Israel was also destroyed so be it. After that he
would bomb Iran back into ...

The world is in very desperate state when we have to depend
on Vladimir Putin to straighten things out. Although maybe
the Chinese will help.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-04-15 17:53:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 10:28:04 -0700 (PDT), David Kleinecke
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Tony Cooper
Coming up with a Trump statement that doesn't make sense is too much
like shooting the proverbial fish in a proverbial barrel, but this one
"The way you're going to make a good trade deal is to help us with
North Korea, otherwise we're just going to go it alone. That will be
all right, too. But going it alone means going it with a lot of other
nations.".
President Donald Trump to President Xi Jinping.
Have you thought about the poor interpreter who has to (attempt to)
render that lot into some coherent form?
"This man's an idiot. He's blethering on but saying nothing."
The interpreter just has to render "go it alone" as "go on without you".
The poor Sean whatsisname has to deal with contradictory statements, as
usual. The overall intent is that Trump intends to fight a war on two
fronts. On the Korean front, the plan is to bomb North Korea back into
the stone age, in retaliation for which South Korea will be bombed back
into the stone age. In the middle east, the plan is first to neutralise
Assad, then to neutralise Saddam's opposition, then to leave Islamic
state in control.
I thought he intended to bomb Syria back into the stone age
too and if Israel was also destroyed so be it. After that he
would bomb Iran back into ...
The world is in very desperate state when we have to depend
on Vladimir Putin to straighten things out. Although maybe
the Chinese will help.
The USSR and China were important in WWII. Is Trump going to trigger
WWIII?
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter T. Daniels
2017-04-15 18:00:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 10:28:04 -0700 (PDT), David Kleinecke
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Tony Cooper
Coming up with a Trump statement that doesn't make sense is too much
like shooting the proverbial fish in a proverbial barrel, but this one
"The way you're going to make a good trade deal is to help us with
North Korea, otherwise we're just going to go it alone. That will be
all right, too. But going it alone means going it with a lot of other
nations.".
President Donald Trump to President Xi Jinping.
Have you thought about the poor interpreter who has to (attempt to)
render that lot into some coherent form?
"This man's an idiot. He's blethering on but saying nothing."
The interpreter just has to render "go it alone" as "go on without you".
The poor Sean whatsisname has to deal with contradictory statements, as
usual. The overall intent is that Trump intends to fight a war on two
fronts. On the Korean front, the plan is to bomb North Korea back into
the stone age, in retaliation for which South Korea will be bombed back
into the stone age. In the middle east, the plan is first to neutralise
Assad, then to neutralise Saddam's opposition, then to leave Islamic
state in control.
I thought he intended to bomb Syria back into the stone age
too and if Israel was also destroyed so be it. After that he
would bomb Iran back into ...
The world is in very desperate state when we have to depend
on Vladimir Putin to straighten things out. Although maybe
the Chinese will help.
The USSR and China were important in WWII. Is Trump going to trigger
WWIII?
Not intentionally. He's leaving all military decisions to the commanders on the
ground. Use of the MOAB wasn't authorized by the White Hosue, some colonel or
something thought it would be a good idea.
Sam Plusnet
2017-04-15 21:06:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 10:28:04 -0700 (PDT), David Kleinecke
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Tony Cooper
Coming up with a Trump statement that doesn't make sense is too much
like shooting the proverbial fish in a proverbial barrel, but this one
"The way you're going to make a good trade deal is to help us with
North Korea, otherwise we're just going to go it alone. That will be
all right, too. But going it alone means going it with a lot of other
nations.".
President Donald Trump to President Xi Jinping.
Have you thought about the poor interpreter who has to (attempt to)
render that lot into some coherent form?
"This man's an idiot. He's blethering on but saying nothing."
The interpreter just has to render "go it alone" as "go on without you".
The poor Sean whatsisname has to deal with contradictory statements, as
usual. The overall intent is that Trump intends to fight a war on two
fronts. On the Korean front, the plan is to bomb North Korea back into
the stone age, in retaliation for which South Korea will be bombed back
into the stone age. In the middle east, the plan is first to neutralise
Assad, then to neutralise Saddam's opposition, then to leave Islamic
state in control.
I thought he intended to bomb Syria back into the stone age
too and if Israel was also destroyed so be it. After that he
would bomb Iran back into ...
The world is in very desperate state when we have to depend
on Vladimir Putin to straighten things out. Although maybe
the Chinese will help.
The USSR and China were important in WWII. Is Trump going to trigger
WWIII?
Not intentionally. He's leaving all military decisions to the commanders on the
ground. Use of the MOAB wasn't authorized by the White Hosue, some colonel or
something thought it would be a good idea.
Use of that device _could_ be authorised by the local commander - but
questions about White House involvement weren't answered.
--
Sam Plusnet
Peter T. Daniels
2017-04-15 21:40:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 10:28:04 -0700 (PDT), David Kleinecke
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Tony Cooper
Coming up with a Trump statement that doesn't make sense is too much
like shooting the proverbial fish in a proverbial barrel, but this one
"The way you're going to make a good trade deal is to help us with
North Korea, otherwise we're just going to go it alone. That will be
all right, too. But going it alone means going it with a lot of other
nations.".
President Donald Trump to President Xi Jinping.
Have you thought about the poor interpreter who has to (attempt to)
render that lot into some coherent form?
"This man's an idiot. He's blethering on but saying nothing."
The interpreter just has to render "go it alone" as "go on without you".
The poor Sean whatsisname has to deal with contradictory statements, as
usual. The overall intent is that Trump intends to fight a war on two
fronts. On the Korean front, the plan is to bomb North Korea back into
the stone age, in retaliation for which South Korea will be bombed back
into the stone age. In the middle east, the plan is first to neutralise
Assad, then to neutralise Saddam's opposition, then to leave Islamic
state in control.
I thought he intended to bomb Syria back into the stone age
too and if Israel was also destroyed so be it. After that he
would bomb Iran back into ...
The world is in very desperate state when we have to depend
on Vladimir Putin to straighten things out. Although maybe
the Chinese will help.
The USSR and China were important in WWII. Is Trump going to trigger
WWIII?
Not intentionally. He's leaving all military decisions to the commanders on the
ground. Use of the MOAB wasn't authorized by the White Hosue, some colonel or
something thought it would be a good idea.
Use of that device _could_ be authorised by the local commander - but
questions about White House involvement weren't answered.
This week, anyway, he's not involved in tactical decisions. And there's no
evidence he's interested in strategic ones, either.

Do we really have to wait for the use of nuclear weapons to invoke a XXVth
Amendment procedure?
Harrison Hill
2017-04-16 21:36:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 10:28:04 -0700 (PDT), David Kleinecke
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Tony Cooper
Coming up with a Trump statement that doesn't make sense is too much
like shooting the proverbial fish in a proverbial barrel, but this one
"The way you're going to make a good trade deal is to help us with
North Korea, otherwise we're just going to go it alone. That will be
all right, too. But going it alone means going it with a lot of other
nations.".
President Donald Trump to President Xi Jinping.
Have you thought about the poor interpreter who has to (attempt to)
render that lot into some coherent form?
"This man's an idiot. He's blethering on but saying nothing."
The interpreter just has to render "go it alone" as "go on without you".
The poor Sean whatsisname has to deal with contradictory statements, as
usual. The overall intent is that Trump intends to fight a war on two
fronts. On the Korean front, the plan is to bomb North Korea back into
the stone age, in retaliation for which South Korea will be bombed back
into the stone age. In the middle east, the plan is first to neutralise
Assad, then to neutralise Saddam's opposition, then to leave Islamic
state in control.
I thought he intended to bomb Syria back into the stone age
too and if Israel was also destroyed so be it. After that he
would bomb Iran back into ...
The world is in very desperate state when we have to depend
on Vladimir Putin to straighten things out. Although maybe
the Chinese will help.
The USSR and China were important in WWII. Is Trump going to trigger
WWIII?
Not intentionally. He's leaving all military decisions to the commanders on the
ground. Use of the MOAB wasn't authorized by the White Hosue, some colonel or
something thought it would be a good idea.
Use of that device _could_ be authorised by the local commander - but
questions about White House involvement weren't answered.
This week, anyway, he's not involved in tactical decisions. And there's no
evidence he's interested in strategic ones, either.
Do we really have to wait for the use of nuclear weapons to invoke a XXVth
Amendment procedure?
Forgive me for being stupid. Haven't we just this week
seen the antidote to nuclear weaponry? A (potential)
nuclear weapon being destroyed at launch? At the moment
when it is at its slowest and most vulnerable?

"Tall Boy" Earthquake Bombs have been superseded by
drones. The Intercontinental Missile cannot leave its
pen.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-04-16 21:48:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
The USSR and China were important in WWII. Is Trump going to trigger
WWIII?
Not intentionally. He's leaving all military decisions to the commanders on the
ground. Use of the MOAB wasn't authorized by the White Hosue, some colonel or
something thought it would be a good idea.
Use of that device _could_ be authorised by the local commander - but
questions about White House involvement weren't answered.
This week, anyway, he's not involved in tactical decisions. And there's no
evidence he's interested in strategic ones, either.
Do we really have to wait for the use of nuclear weapons to invoke a XXVth
Amendment procedure?
Forgive me for being stupid. Haven't we just this week
seen the antidote to nuclear weaponry? A (potential)
nuclear weapon being destroyed at launch? At the moment
when it is at its slowest and most vulnerable?
They've successfully launched missiles 1 out of 5 tries, so you can't count on
a launch-pad mishap every time.
Post by Harrison Hill
"Tall Boy" Earthquake Bombs have been superseded by
drones. The Intercontinental Missile cannot leave its
pen.
There probably isn't a drone big enough to have carried that MOAB.
Harrison Hill
2017-04-16 22:06:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
The USSR and China were important in WWII. Is Trump going to trigger
WWIII?
Not intentionally. He's leaving all military decisions to the commanders on the
ground. Use of the MOAB wasn't authorized by the White Hosue, some colonel or
something thought it would be a good idea.
Use of that device _could_ be authorised by the local commander - but
questions about White House involvement weren't answered.
This week, anyway, he's not involved in tactical decisions. And there's no
evidence he's interested in strategic ones, either.
Do we really have to wait for the use of nuclear weapons to invoke a XXVth
Amendment procedure?
Forgive me for being stupid. Haven't we just this week
seen the antidote to nuclear weaponry? A (potential)
nuclear weapon being destroyed at launch? At the moment
when it is at its slowest and most vulnerable?
They've successfully launched missiles 1 out of 5 tries, so you can't count on
a launch-pad mishap every time.
Post by Harrison Hill
"Tall Boy" Earthquake Bombs have been superseded by
drones. The Intercontinental Missile cannot leave its
pen.
There probably isn't a drone big enough to have carried that MOAB.
Why would they need to and what would be the point? Drones can hit
missiles as they leave the ground.
David Kleinecke
2017-04-16 22:29:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
The USSR and China were important in WWII. Is Trump going to trigger
WWIII?
Not intentionally. He's leaving all military decisions to the commanders on the
ground. Use of the MOAB wasn't authorized by the White Hosue, some colonel or
something thought it would be a good idea.
Use of that device _could_ be authorised by the local commander - but
questions about White House involvement weren't answered.
This week, anyway, he's not involved in tactical decisions. And there's no
evidence he's interested in strategic ones, either.
Do we really have to wait for the use of nuclear weapons to invoke a XXVth
Amendment procedure?
Forgive me for being stupid. Haven't we just this week
seen the antidote to nuclear weaponry? A (potential)
nuclear weapon being destroyed at launch? At the moment
when it is at its slowest and most vulnerable?
They've successfully launched missiles 1 out of 5 tries, so you can't count on
a launch-pad mishap every time.
Post by Harrison Hill
"Tall Boy" Earthquake Bombs have been superseded by
drones. The Intercontinental Missile cannot leave its
pen.
There probably isn't a drone big enough to have carried that MOAB.
Why would they need to and what would be the point? Drones can hit
missiles as they leave the ground.
They have to be very nearby to catch a missile at launch and
the North Koreans (or whoever) will simply shoot down every
nearby drone.
Harrison Hill
2017-04-16 22:37:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
The USSR and China were important in WWII. Is Trump going to trigger
WWIII?
Not intentionally. He's leaving all military decisions to the commanders on the
ground. Use of the MOAB wasn't authorized by the White Hosue, some colonel or
something thought it would be a good idea.
Use of that device _could_ be authorised by the local commander - but
questions about White House involvement weren't answered.
This week, anyway, he's not involved in tactical decisions. And there's no
evidence he's interested in strategic ones, either.
Do we really have to wait for the use of nuclear weapons to invoke a XXVth
Amendment procedure?
Forgive me for being stupid. Haven't we just this week
seen the antidote to nuclear weaponry? A (potential)
nuclear weapon being destroyed at launch? At the moment
when it is at its slowest and most vulnerable?
They've successfully launched missiles 1 out of 5 tries, so you can't count on
a launch-pad mishap every time.
Post by Harrison Hill
"Tall Boy" Earthquake Bombs have been superseded by
drones. The Intercontinental Missile cannot leave its
pen.
There probably isn't a drone big enough to have carried that MOAB.
Why would they need to and what would be the point? Drones can hit
missiles as they leave the ground.
They have to be very nearby to catch a missile at launch and
the North Koreans (or whoever) will simply shoot down every
nearby drone.
Of course they will. Drones are defenceless little packs.
David Kleinecke
2017-04-16 22:48:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
The USSR and China were important in WWII. Is Trump going to trigger
WWIII?
Not intentionally. He's leaving all military decisions to the commanders on the
ground. Use of the MOAB wasn't authorized by the White Hosue, some colonel or
something thought it would be a good idea.
Use of that device _could_ be authorised by the local commander - but
questions about White House involvement weren't answered.
This week, anyway, he's not involved in tactical decisions. And there's no
evidence he's interested in strategic ones, either.
Do we really have to wait for the use of nuclear weapons to invoke a XXVth
Amendment procedure?
Forgive me for being stupid. Haven't we just this week
seen the antidote to nuclear weaponry? A (potential)
nuclear weapon being destroyed at launch? At the moment
when it is at its slowest and most vulnerable?
They've successfully launched missiles 1 out of 5 tries, so you can't count on
a launch-pad mishap every time.
Post by Harrison Hill
"Tall Boy" Earthquake Bombs have been superseded by
drones. The Intercontinental Missile cannot leave its
pen.
There probably isn't a drone big enough to have carried that MOAB.
Why would they need to and what would be the point? Drones can hit
missiles as they leave the ground.
They have to be very nearby to catch a missile at launch and
the North Koreans (or whoever) will simply shoot down every
nearby drone.
Of course they will. Drones are defenceless little packs.
But that suggests drone attacks on the missile launching site.
So - do we know the locations of all the sites and just exactly
how hard are the sites. Then the question becomes how fast can
a missile launch site be built.

The US seriously considered (but I believe never implemented) a
intercontinental missile system where each missile rode around on
a train moving from random location to random location. That way
the Russians could not target our missiles sites - because they
kept changing - and would be vulnerable to counter-attack.
pensive hamster
2017-04-17 23:48:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[...]
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by David Kleinecke
They have to be very nearby to catch a missile at launch and
the North Koreans (or whoever) will simply shoot down every
nearby drone.
Of course they will. Drones are defenceless little packs.
Not necessarily. Hobby ones are, but:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicle#Military
'The MQ-9 Reaper costs $12 million ...'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_MQ-9_Reaper
'... In 2008, the New York Air National Guard 174th Attack Wing
began the transition from F-16 piloted fighters to MQ-9 Reapers,
becoming the first fighter squadron conversion to an all–unmanned
combat aerial vehicle (UCAV) attack squadron.[8]'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAVs_in_the_U.S._military#Armed_attacks_by_U.S._UAVs
'... MQ-1 Predator UAVs armed with Hellfire missiles have been
used by the U.S. as platforms for hitting ground targets. Armed
Predators were first used in late 2001 from bases in Pakistan and
Uzbekistan, mostly aimed at assassinating high profile individuals
(terrorist leaders, etc.) inside Afghanistan.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-114_Hellfire
'... The Hellfire missile is the primary 100-pound (45 kg) class
air-to-ground precision weapon for the armed forces of the United
States and many other nations.'

I'm guessing military drones can probably be fitted with sophisticated
jamming electronics, so they may not be so easy to take out. And I
guess also, that Wikipedia may not have access to the full
specifications of the latest drones.

Loading...