That awkward moment when your new latin-American study Jesus Hernandez is in the hall the first time and takes "we are all waiting for Jesus to come" a bit too literal.
But really, Yew! again: YEW YEW YEW.
Posts by bohm
-
7Toilet noises
by pleaseresearch inwhen growing up as a child i would go to the toilet, and now as an adult i know what those noises were.. they were tugging and jerking sounds, along with heavy breathing.
i had no idea what was going on.
i remember too telling my mum about it.. but i now know.
-
-
-
67
Japan On High Alert
by snowbird inmy g'daughter and her hubby are stationed in okinawa.. i talked with her a few hours earlier today, and she stated they're preparing for the worst.. young people are remarkably resilient, aren't they?.
sylvia.
-
-
bohm
I think people are underestimating just how involved China is with North Korea and how little China wish for a unified Korea:
North Korea and China have a treaty according to which they are obliged to defend each other and provide assistance in the event of war. In other words, if the US bomb North Korea, China is required to come to north Korea's assistance militarily on the simplest interpretation. There are indications this treaty is not simply seen as a cold-war relic by China since the anniversary of the signing was celebrated last year.
North Korea's attempts to obtain ICBMs with nukes has been underway for decades and is now in the final stages. Obviously, China has long ago accepted this will happen, and recognize it as a far lesser evil than a unified Korea. Drawing red lines in the sand and hoping China will change its minds seems very far-fetched to me at this point, not only because of the current US administration could not convince an alligator to eat a chicken, but also because what exactly can anyone offer China?
What should also be mentioned is that now that North Korea has nuclear weapons, China has more incentive to prevent unification because what they least of all like is a nuclear unified Korea on its border.
-
67
Japan On High Alert
by snowbird inmy g'daughter and her hubby are stationed in okinawa.. i talked with her a few hours earlier today, and she stated they're preparing for the worst.. young people are remarkably resilient, aren't they?.
sylvia.
-
-
bohm
cofty:
One assessment I have read is that China (a) don't have a clue what to do about DPRK and (b) first and foremost don't want a unified Korea.
North Korea having ICMBs with nukes is not as such that bad for China for any reason I can see. I think the main problem from their perspective is that it might encourage others (Japan, South Korea) to get their own nukes and that may be undesirable, however, it is very unclear that will actually happen and China will, at any rate, remain the dominant force in the region.
If NK carry out another nuclear test - any day now - then China be forced to make a stand.
The question on my mind is why? China likely can't persuade North Korea from miniaturizing their existing nuclear arsenal (no success so far; unclear if real efforts are really being put into the problem actually) and when North Korea do succeed, what will China gain from altering its stance in that situation? I just don't see what is forcing China.
China may, in an ideal world, hope for a non-nuclear DPRK, but that has already happened and we got to think what makes sense for China right now and I think that is doing as little as possible.
NK must be prevented from having nuclear weapons at any cost but that cost might be massive.
What are the real options here? Draw a line in the sand and wait for north Korea to cross it, which they will?
According to experts in North Korea (actual experts, not talking heads on TV) it is very likely DPRK may evaluate the situation from a completely different set of assumptions than we assume. I recommend "The cleanest race"
Imagine after the first bombing run hundreds of thousands of NK troops pour into the northern provinces of south korea which is what they have prepared for decades... will there really be a political will to push them back considering the conflict will be fought with chemical and biological weapons in regions already devastated by shelling? will it be possible to actually defeat DPRK or will China prevent than by threatening to step into the conflict (i.e. a replay of the Korean conflict?).
I think it is easy to imagine that DPRK believes they can win such a conflict (i.e. inflict damage on south Korea, possibly moving the border slightly south), which would make sense of why they seem to make threats of war nonstop.
-
67
Japan On High Alert
by snowbird inmy g'daughter and her hubby are stationed in okinawa.. i talked with her a few hours earlier today, and she stated they're preparing for the worst.. young people are remarkably resilient, aren't they?.
sylvia.
-
-
bohm
Cofty: With viable nukes which they have, miniaturization and mounting them on missiles is only a question of time. The figure I have heard is 5-10 years and in addition to that, there are other ways to deliver nukes. The only way I think it can be solved is diplomatically, and that is very doubtful NK will budge and at any rate, Trump is the least likely person to broker anything.
In addition to this, there is a good chance DPRK may be looking for a war and may have the ability to win it (win is in this context defined as taking a few of the northern provinces of SK)... that is why I don't think there are serious plans to do anything. It isn't like Iran where their reaction to an airstrike can be expected to be constrained, DPRK may well go all out apeshit with hundreds of thousands of troops storming SK.
-
67
Japan On High Alert
by snowbird inmy g'daughter and her hubby are stationed in okinawa.. i talked with her a few hours earlier today, and she stated they're preparing for the worst.. young people are remarkably resilient, aren't they?.
sylvia.
-
-
bohm
Sylvia: lol, I definitely think there is a "crowd size" problem, but Trump is a bully and it would seem more in line with that to attack someone less than his own size.. that is why I think this is more calculated (ha!) posturing.
-
67
Japan On High Alert
by snowbird inmy g'daughter and her hubby are stationed in okinawa.. i talked with her a few hours earlier today, and she stated they're preparing for the worst.. young people are remarkably resilient, aren't they?.
sylvia.
-
-
bohm
Can someone explain why this is happening? NK has been blowing up nukes and shooting missiles for years, so what has changed that require military intervention?
This smells an awful lot like another Trump-orchestrated distraction. A very dangerous one, but I bet it will blow over soon.
-
25
A baffling physics question
by FatFreek 2005 infor several weeks i've been treating myself to a hot chocolate milk (well, soymilk) before bedtime.
some 16 oz soymilk which i heat on high in our microwave oven.
this is just enough time where the liquid begins to bubble along the top edge.. i then take it out of the microwave and place it on my kitchen gram scale, stir it good enough to redistribute the heat, then reset the scale to zero grams.. next, i squeeze in the hershey's sytup, "special dark mildly sweet chocolate" (fat free) into the warmed soymilk till the scale reads some 30 grams.
-
-
bohm
It is possible a small amount of milk gets lost on the spoon + boiling but I am not sure that can account for the full effect. I think what you are experiencing is that the scale is slightly broken such that it change measurement after being pressed/depressed.
Try this:
After you have applied Syrup to the milk and stirred (scale reads 30 grams), remove cup and place an empty cup on the scale (the calibration cup). Fill the empty cup with cold water till it reads 30 grams again. Interexchange the two cups a couple of times and ensure the scale reads 30 grams every time.
Place the calibration cup on the counter and repeat the experiment while ensuring the calibration cup reads 30 grams every time. If at the end of the experiment your microwaved cup reads 26 grams, and the calibration is 30, something is up!
-
80
President Trump launches missile strike against Syria
by jwleaks inpesident trump authorized the missile strike because “it is in the vital, national security interest of the united states to prevent and deter the use of deadly chemical weapons.” .
59 tomahawk missiles were launched from two us navy ships.. russia has condemned the action.. https://youtu.be/4svp3yfneyq.
.
-
-
bohm
LUHE:
What do you think Putins objective in Syria is? Do you think Putin is interested in stopping the refugee crisis?
I am asking because for the past several months you have been closely aligned with the official Kremlin line on Syria, i.e. that Assad is the only alternative to ISIS in Syria, that the Russian intervention is about combatting ISIS, that US lead efforts were failing and not accomplishing anything before the Russian intervention, etc. etc.
Regarding my theory I posted yesterday that the gas attack was sanctioned by Moskow as a provocation against the US:
the following scenario appears very plausible:
Russia sell top-of-the line Air-defence systems to Syrian army (meanwhile ISIS has no air-defence), Russian airforce ensures coalition efforts to defeat ISIS/Assad fails, Russia watch passively as Syria use gas against civilian population however by previous moves, as well as by stationing troops requiring US to warn RU who will warn Syria, it has ensured US have few real options to respond, none which will meaningfully affect Assad...
-
80
President Trump launches missile strike against Syria
by jwleaks inpesident trump authorized the missile strike because “it is in the vital, national security interest of the united states to prevent and deter the use of deadly chemical weapons.” .
59 tomahawk missiles were launched from two us navy ships.. russia has condemned the action.. https://youtu.be/4svp3yfneyq.
.
-
-
bohm
LUHE:
Okay so you believe that we can't know who carried out the attacks, but it is still right to attack Assad for carrying out the attacks?
Lol.
Either we know Assad did it or he didn't. If he did it there is a reason for considering a military strategy, if he didn't no such reason. It's like saying: I don't know if he is guilty or murder, but it is good he is in jail for life. It does not make sense.
Then Trump did what Obama failed to do - enforce his predecessor's red lines.
Can you explain what that red line is?
"We will warn you and damage an airfield...somewhat!"
59 cruise missiles won't change anything. It never did.
Fighting against Assad and ISIS and hoping moderate rebels will make some kind of democratic state strikes me as unrealistic.
So the "strategy" is attacks which are designed not to remove (or weaken) Assad, or even prevent him from carrying out further chemical weapons attacks.
so re Assad vs Islamists, Assad is the lesser of the two evils there.
Russia approves of this framing of the situation in Syria.
Got it: Bomb Assad, with the goal of not accomplishing anything, for something you don't know if he did, with the goal of not accomplishing anything of lasting importance because we want Assad to be there. Presumably, bombing him a bit will make him a more reasonable partner later.
Now you lay out your position
I think Syria is lost, partly due to Obamas failure to confront Russia, which was born out of a political climate in the US where Russias involvement in the conflict was mis-understood and mis-represented -- what should be done now is to cut the losses, identify lessons and prevent a similar thing from happening elsewhere, most importantly to understand that Russia fought a proxy war with the US in Syria and won.
The most important lesson to be learned is to identify what Russia is likely trying to accomplish. Russia has been selling modern S400 anti-air systems to the Assad regime. Why do you think Assad wish to buy modern anti-air systems when the Islamic state does not have any airplanes and the regime's economy is likely stretched to the breaking point?
The ONLY party hostile to the Assad regime interested in flying aircraft over Syria is the US, and so Russia is selling these systems with the purpose of shooting down US airplanes. I think it is very clear that Russia is hoping to pull the US further into a proxy war over Syria where US aircrafts are potentially shot down.. with Russian military stationed across Syria such a proxy war would likely be unwinnable at this point given Russias airforce turned the tide against the rebels the past year (remember this was the moves you were applauding).
It takes little imagination to go from that view to an answer as to why Assad would risk a gas attack: Why not? What is the US going to do? Limited military intervention if this type, with a warning, will only strengthen the Assad/Putin bond and give Russia a better negotiation position. Remember Putin is ready to throw Assad under the bus any moment if it means lifting sanctions.
You asked me what should be done. I can't answer that exactly since I am not a military strategist and I do not know what is feasible at this point. I can say that the first thing that should be done is to develop a plan which any military intervention should be a component of; dropping 59 cruice missiles is not part of any plan I know.
-
80
President Trump launches missile strike against Syria
by jwleaks inpesident trump authorized the missile strike because “it is in the vital, national security interest of the united states to prevent and deter the use of deadly chemical weapons.” .
59 tomahawk missiles were launched from two us navy ships.. russia has condemned the action.. https://youtu.be/4svp3yfneyq.
.
-
-
bohm
SBF: At least with the book study, we don't have to begin with the discussion with an argument over whether it might not have been dropped at all.