Sorry, left my sarcasm font off.
I wondered, but Australia do actually commit quite a few human rights abuses so I wasn’t sure. Their aboriginal dealings have been and still are appalling, and some of their immigration detention centres are pretty bad too.
Yes, but in comparison to Iraq, China, and a few dozen other countries it’s pretty darn minor.
There is no other possible end result to a North Korean attack on the US other than the eventual destruction of North Korea as a country.
Bush said this, Clinton said this, Bush said it again, Obama waffled but sort of said this, and Trump has now said this. This isn’t like blustering about China and Taiwan, this is pretty damn clear cut. It’s not even like defending Kuwait, an attack on US soil from DPRK is a suicide attack.
Attack the US, and after hundreds of thousands to millions of people die, North Korea will no longer exist. Period, dot, end of sentence. I’m not saying every person in North Korea will die, and I’m pretty certain we’ll hold the nukes back on our side, but this is a stance every president since the 1980’s has supported. It will be a mess, and it will be pointless, but this is what happens when the whole world coddles a maniac.
The collateral damage to South Korea would be catastrophic. And Japan probably wouldn’t escape unscathed either.
The whole 8th Army is a speed bump. You notice that there are always complaints about US bases in Japan, and Germany, and most other places… but not all that much about Korea, they are well aware of how they are staying independent. I wouldn’t call it collateral damage for them.
We talked quite a bit about what a Korean war would look like when I was in the 25th Division. Basically the combat loads in Korea marked for us were for show, they’d be 30 miles behind enemy lines by the time we got wheels up. Now with their new artillery emplacements they are talking about a dead zone that deep. But then is there any ammo left to continue the push for them?
If the alternative is letting Kim just continue lobbing nuclear softballs here and there, it may be the less costly way to go.
Right but isn’t Seoul less than 30 miles from the DMZ? And how many million people live there? It would be a bloodbath.
Seoul and everything around it would be dust. Assuming the projections are correct and nothing untoward happens supposedly DPRK has enough artillery in place to put a hurting on all of northern south Korea, and enough pure manpower to push through what’s already in place.
North Korea is a giant hostage situation. The thing is, if you have someone holding a bus hostage, who then sets up a SAM location on top of that bus and starts shooting down 747s, you can make noises about saving the people on the bus but it’s not doing any good protecting them to let all those planes go down.
Not saying I want to see it, but now that we’ve handed them a gun to point at everyone’s head, if they start shooting they need to be put down. Do we trade Guam for Seoul… or Honolulu? Or Tokyo? This is what Clinton did with the deal with North Korea, that they never really paid attention to. And this is what Obama did with Iran, that hopefully we can stop.
I don’t want to see Seoul gone. I’m a fan of too many of their celebrities.
Ideally we shoot down all 4-5 missiles they launch and then just crank down on the sanctions again. I don’t know this can end without a bunch of dead people.
Onodera told a lower house of parliament committee that Japan would be allowed to hit a missile headed towards the U.S. Pacific territory if it was judged to be an existential threat to Japan, Kyodo said. This is a reiteration of the Japanese government’s position.
Experts say Japan does not currently have the capability to shoot down a missile flying over its territory headed for Guam.
Maybe we can redirect the one going to South Korea.
So if India and China start a war what’s that look like in the rest of the world.
Do we hope everyone stays cools and the two giants just fight it out, or does everyone jump in on the side of their bestest buddy and we redo WWII? If the US aids India, the Russians and Chinese become BFFs again.
I have been reading Scott Adam’s blog and there’s still good information in it, such as the one today where he lays out why the side that’s not in power at any given time has to have a certain view so that things will make sense to them as to why they’re not in power.
He also had one where he did a review of a prediction he made six months ago. At the end, he sums it up by saying that he got it wrong.
Just to show that it’s not just American politics that is stupid (we have an election on the 23rd of September) …
tl;dr at the end.
First, a bit of background that is pertinent to the story.
New Zealand uses a mixed member proportional (MMP) electoral system.
You get two votes in an election. The first vote is for who you want to represent your local electorate. The second vote (and most important one) is for which party you want to govern.
There are 69 electorate seats. The other 51 seats (list seats) of the 120 seat parliament is determined by the proportion of the vote that each party received. A party’s total number of seats (list & electorate) is determined by their proportion of the vote.
So if a party receives 40% of the total vote, they will get 48 seats in the house. This could be made up of 48 electorate seats and no list seats, or 48 list seats and no electorate seats, or anything in between.
A couple of foibles make it a little more interesting. In order to get any seats in the house, you either have to get 1 electorate seat, or 5% of the total vote.
This has led to situations in the past where one party received 3% of the total vote, and got 4 seats in parliament because they won an electorate seat, whereas another party got something like 4.8% of the vote but got no seats because they didn’t win an electorate.
Okay, that out of the way, on to the actual stupidity.
Our green party got about 8% of the vote last election, so quite a few seats in the house. This time around they were polling at about 11%, so they were looking at even more seats.
That’s until their co-leader stepped up.
In order to highlight poverty issues, she fronted up and admitted she had committed benefit fraud when she was a struggling solo mother. At this point she actually had quite a bit of sympathy.
Then more details came out.
Since she became a member of parliament she hasn’t exactly been struggling (they get a pretty reasonable salary), so you’d expect that as part of the announcement she would either say that she has already paid back the benefit over-payment, or that she was working with the government department to work pay it back. Neither of those things happened until the government department announced that they were pursuing a criminal prosecution. Sympathy is ebbing away at this point.
She then announced that not only had she committed benefit fraud, she had also committed electoral fraud. She pretended to live at an address that she did not so she could vote for a friend. She has now lost all the sympathy she had, and there are lots of calls for her to resign - including from within her own party.
This is the point where the Greens completely lost it.
Instead of taking a stance and asking her to resign, they endorsed her as co-leader. Their two longest serving members of parliament decided that wasn’t good enough and announced that they were going to step down as a result.
The Greens then kicked them out of the party immediately because of their disagreement. Yep, you take a moral stand in the green party and you get kicked out.
Then came the polls. The greens had dropped from 11% down to below 4% - well below the threshold for getting in to parliament, They have no electorate MPs so that would mean they are gone altogether.
Because of the poor poll results, the co-leader who caused all the sh*t-storm ended up resigning anyway. Which is a good result, but it’s just a pity she is doing it for the wrong reasons.
So yeah, stupidity all around in the green party.
tl;dr; Green party shot themselves in the foot and may end up out of parliament
So the ACLU tweets this and then apologizes a few tweets later for promoting white supremacy because of the photo.
We’re really hitting the limits of stupidity here. The end of the world has got to be near.
I think I’m missing something here. How is that related to white supremacy? Is it the American flag, the My Little Pony, or the “free speech” t-shirt?
Exactly. I don’t make the connection, but apparently some people do.
@MikeP I think it’s because the kid is white and someone thinks they could have used a kid of color instead. While I’m all for POC having more representation this seems kind of ridiculous to me.
I think it’s beyond ridiculous and they went for ludicrous instead.
They’ve gone plaid!