Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Whoa! Fat (NorKs) May Have Just Agreed to Denuclearize the Korean Peninsula [Arch Stanton] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Arch Stanton wrote:
wimsey wrote:
You can cite all the online dictionaries you want, you'll never convince this son of an English professor that "denuclearize" is a word.


The proper word is "denucularize". :)

Thanks, Jimmy Carter. ;-)

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."
Quote Reply
Re: Whoa! Fat (NorKs) May Have Just Agreed to Denuclearize the Korean Peninsula [MidwestRoadie] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
MidwestRoadie wrote:
A million times I’ve vowed to stop checking this room. Then I venture into another forum and realize this is a strangely awesome little corner of the internet. Nothing gets accomplished. It’s a tremendous waste of time. And yet it does seem to be filled with people who are intelligent in an odd mix of areas, with some interesting perspectives...and some complete bullshit mixed into the cocktail.


big kahuna wrote:

I am really and truly amazed at the stupid sh*t we all find to argue about in the LR. Too many smart people with too much time on their hands. ;-)

This pretty much sums up the LR for me these days: ;-)

"Life does not agree with philosophy: There is no happiness that is not idleness, and only what is useless is pleasurable." Anton Chekhov

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."
Quote Reply
Re: Whoa! Fat (NorKs) May Have Just Agreed to Denuclearize the Korean Peninsula [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Over a liquid lunch we have been reviewing the mental midgets visit to China.

My colleague thinks this was the long time coming, proverbial bitch slap from China.

China is pissed about the midgets behavior, has had the capability to give him a permanent headache being sat on his border for a long time, and wanted to make clear exactly what is expected of him in advance of his discussions with the other midget.

My friend has said since I have first visited that at the first time of a real problem from NK, he thinks China would roll on in and sort the shit out but its useful to have NK between them and SK. (not that I really understand why given how little seperates Hong Kong or Macau from SK in terms of politics, markets and freedom)
Quote Reply
Re: Whoa! Fat (NorKs) May Have Just Agreed to Denuclearize the Korean Peninsula [Andrewmc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Andrewmc wrote:
Over a liquid lunch we have been reviewing the mental midgets visit to China.

My colleague thinks this was the long time coming, proverbial bitch slap from China.

China is pissed about the midgets behavior, has had the capability to give him a permanent headache being sat on his border for a long time, and wanted to make clear exactly what is expected of him in advance of his discussions with the other midget.

My friend has said since I have first visited that at the first time of a real problem from NK, he thinks China would roll on in and sort the shit out but its useful to have NK between them and SK. (not that I really understand why given how little seperates Hong Kong or Macau from SK in terms of politics, markets and freedom)

Strategically, having North Korea as a puppet state of theirs gives China a solid defense in depth that the US and its partners would have to roll through, taking a great deal of time (China believes) in order to invade them. It also gives the Chinese a surrogate through which they can commit mischief (such as funneling arms to the NorKs who would in turn move them on to China's actual clients, such as national liberation groups in other countries) without seeming to dirty their own hands by doing so. It's similar to what the Soviet Union used to do with Cuba in that regard, where the Cubans used to send troops to Angola. You don't get that ability with Macau and HK.

Look back at the Korean War. The Chinese didn't send in their own troops until it looked like US forces were going to cross the Yalu River, at which point the Chinese poured in troops and set the conditions that led to years-long fighting and eventual stalemate and armistice (not true peace terms, because the US/UN forces are still technically at war with North Korea all these decades later).

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."
Quote Reply
Re: Whoa! Fat (NorKs) May Have Just Agreed to Denuclearize the Korean Peninsula [ironmayb] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ironmayb wrote:
the fact that he travelled outside his own country is significant, to me

the fact that these representation were made to China vs. the US is significant, to me

beyond that I will wait and see what actions come along with the words.

I don't see a bad side to this. At worst it leaves us where we are.

I was against Trump meeting with him directly and unilaterally. Still am. But I can be convinced otherwise if positive steps are taken from here.

It is interesting that Xi can meet with Kim and nobody bats an eye, but if Trump meets with Kim it'll be this huge symbolic nightmare. I'm tempted to classify that whole area of concern under "tribally induced panic attacks".

Meanwhile, yeah, don't see a bad side, but no good side yet either.
Quote Reply
Re: Whoa! Fat (NorKs) May Have Just Agreed to Denuclearize the Korean Peninsula [SH] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
nobody bats an eye because kim serves at xi's pleasure............he has a long leash but its helpful to china to have a communist sat between them and SK

90% of Nk trade is done with china. china has a massive military presence sat on the border.

i think it waa inevitable he'd have to meet xi before trump
Quote Reply
Re: Whoa! Fat (NorKs) May Have Just Agreed to Denuclearize the Korean Peninsula [wimsey] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
wimsey wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
wimsey wrote:
You can cite all the online dictionaries you want, you'll never convince this son of an English professor that "denuclearize" is a word.

Really? Why? Words are what we create to communicate a thought. If it does that, it is a valid word.


Blah blah blah...if it sounds like I'm being dismissively patronizing, it's because I am. Yes, language evolves and is meant to communicate, but it also has basic rules and a generally accepted vocabulary, and people just making shit up because it sounds neat or saves them a couple keystrokes is glib and lazy. My biggest pet peeve is the over-proliferation of portmanteau words (metrosexual, gaydar, webinar, bromance, chillax...on and on, aren't you clever) but the "verbing" of nouns and adjectives is a close second.


Just curious, is your English professor father aware of the usage of prefixes and suffixes in the English language? Since you certainly are not. Nice appeal to a higher authority though.
Quote Reply
Re: Whoa! Fat (NorKs) May Have Just Agreed to Denuclearize the Korean Peninsula [racin_rusty] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
racin_rusty wrote:
wimsey wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
wimsey wrote:
You can cite all the online dictionaries you want, you'll never convince this son of an English professor that "denuclearize" is a word.

Really? Why? Words are what we create to communicate a thought. If it does that, it is a valid word.


Blah blah blah...if it sounds like I'm being dismissively patronizing, it's because I am. Yes, language evolves and is meant to communicate, but it also has basic rules and a generally accepted vocabulary, and people just making shit up because it sounds neat or saves them a couple keystrokes is glib and lazy. My biggest pet peeve is the over-proliferation of portmanteau words (metrosexual, gaydar, webinar, bromance, chillax...on and on, aren't you clever) but the "verbing" of nouns and adjectives is a close second.


Just curious, is your English professor father aware of the usage of prefixes and suffixes in the English language? Since you certainly are not. Nice appeal to a higher authority though.

Firstly, my mother was the English professor. Point (b), she’s been dead for 24 years so she is no longer aware of anything, though she understood more about prefixes and suffixes than you ever will. Article IV, para. 6, my awareness is fine, but thanks for the unsolicited and inaccurate comments on my parentage, her grammatical knowledge, and my own (and yes, I do prefer an Oxford comma). In conclusion, bite me.
Quote Reply
Re: Whoa! Fat (NorKs) May Have Just Agreed to Denuclearize the Korean Peninsula [racin_rusty] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
racin_rusty wrote:
wimsey wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
wimsey wrote:
You can cite all the online dictionaries you want, you'll never convince this son of an English professor that "denuclearize" is a word.

Really? Why? Words are what we create to communicate a thought. If it does that, it is a valid word.


Blah blah blah...if it sounds like I'm being dismissively patronizing, it's because I am. Yes, language evolves and is meant to communicate, but it also has basic rules and a generally accepted vocabulary, and people just making shit up because it sounds neat or saves them a couple keystrokes is glib and lazy. My biggest pet peeve is the over-proliferation of portmanteau words (metrosexual, gaydar, webinar, bromance, chillax...on and on, aren't you clever) but the "verbing" of nouns and adjectives is a close second.


Just curious, is your English professor father aware of the usage of prefixes and suffixes in the English language? Since you certainly are not. Nice appeal to a higher authority though.

Gaydar, bromance, webinar, and chillax are not examples of prefix/suffix usage. You could probably make that case for metrosexual.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: Whoa! Fat (NorKs) May Have Just Agreed to Denuclearize the Korean Peninsula [SH] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
SH wrote:
It is interesting that Xi can meet with Kim and nobody bats an eye, but if Trump meets with Kim it'll be this huge symbolic nightmare. I'm tempted to classify that whole area of concern under "tribally induced panic attacks".

First, it definitely batted some eyes because it was the first known departure of Kim from North Korea since he took power.

But aside from that China and NK are both autocratic one-party Communist one-party states whose interests are largely aligned. Why would anyone bat an eye over them meeting?

Also Kim went to Xi. Xi didn't come running to Kim.

In any case I'm sticking to my Day 1 prediction that it's not happening. Here we are in April, ~1 month away, and total radio silence. And Bolton, the new National Security Advisor said the trip would just be to "deliver an ultimatum." Uh-huh. Making the President cross the DMZ to deliver an ultimatum from Dr. Regime-Change. Good plan.
Quote Reply
Re: Whoa! Fat (NorKs) May Have Just Agreed to Denuclearize the Korean Peninsula [wimsey] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
wimsey wrote:
racin_rusty wrote:
wimsey wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
wimsey wrote:
You can cite all the online dictionaries you want, you'll never convince this son of an English professor that "denuclearize" is a word.

Really? Why? Words are what we create to communicate a thought. If it does that, it is a valid word.


Blah blah blah...if it sounds like I'm being dismissively patronizing, it's because I am. Yes, language evolves and is meant to communicate, but it also has basic rules and a generally accepted vocabulary, and people just making shit up because it sounds neat or saves them a couple keystrokes is glib and lazy. My biggest pet peeve is the over-proliferation of portmanteau words (metrosexual, gaydar, webinar, bromance, chillax...on and on, aren't you clever) but the "verbing" of nouns and adjectives is a close second.



Just curious, is your English professor father aware of the usage of prefixes and suffixes in the English language? Since you certainly are not. Nice appeal to a higher authority though.


Firstly, my mother was the English professor. Point (b), she’s been dead for 24 years so she is no longer aware of anything, though she understood more about prefixes and suffixes than you ever will. Article IV, para. 6, my awareness is fine, but thanks for the unsolicited and inaccurate comments on my parentage, her grammatical knowledge, and my own (and yes, I do prefer an Oxford comma). In conclusion, bite me.

Seriously, what the fuck ever. It's clear that the purpose of prefixes and suffixes are to create words that do not otherwise exist. Thanks for your non-input.
Quote Reply
Re: Whoa! Fat (NorKs) May Have Just Agreed to Denuclearize the Korean Peninsula [racin_rusty] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
racin_rusty wrote:
wimsey wrote:
racin_rusty wrote:
wimsey wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
wimsey wrote:
You can cite all the online dictionaries you want, you'll never convince this son of an English professor that "denuclearize" is a word.

Really? Why? Words are what we create to communicate a thought. If it does that, it is a valid word.


Blah blah blah...if it sounds like I'm being dismissively patronizing, it's because I am. Yes, language evolves and is meant to communicate, but it also has basic rules and a generally accepted vocabulary, and people just making shit up because it sounds neat or saves them a couple keystrokes is glib and lazy. My biggest pet peeve is the over-proliferation of portmanteau words (metrosexual, gaydar, webinar, bromance, chillax...on and on, aren't you clever) but the "verbing" of nouns and adjectives is a close second.



Just curious, is your English professor father aware of the usage of prefixes and suffixes in the English language? Since you certainly are not. Nice appeal to a higher authority though.


Firstly, my mother was the English professor. Point (b), she’s been dead for 24 years so she is no longer aware of anything, though she understood more about prefixes and suffixes than you ever will. Article IV, para. 6, my awareness is fine, but thanks for the unsolicited and inaccurate comments on my parentage, her grammatical knowledge, and my own (and yes, I do prefer an Oxford comma). In conclusion, bite me.

Seriously, what the fuck ever. It's clear that the purpose of prefixes and suffixes are to create words that do not otherwise exist. Thanks for your non-input.

See slowguy’s comment, reflect upon it, and try again if you feel up to the effort.
Quote Reply
Re: Whoa! Fat (NorKs) May Have Just Agreed to Denuclearize the Korean Peninsula [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trail wrote:
SH wrote:
It is interesting that Xi can meet with Kim and nobody bats an eye, but if Trump meets with Kim it'll be this huge symbolic nightmare. I'm tempted to classify that whole area of concern under "tribally induced panic attacks".

First, it definitely batted some eyes because it was the first known departure of Kim from North Korea since he took power.

But aside from that China and NK are both autocratic one-party Communist one-party states whose interests are largely aligned. Why would anyone bat an eye over them meeting?

Also Kim went to Xi. Xi didn't come running to Kim.

In any case I'm sticking to my Day 1 prediction that it's not happening. Here we are in April, ~1 month away, and total radio silence. And Bolton, the new National Security Advisor said the trip would just be to "deliver an ultimatum." Uh-huh. Making the President cross the DMZ to deliver an ultimatum from Dr. Regime-Change. Good plan.

I think the meeting is more likely to happen now that N Korea has said it will stop its missile tests. Naturally Trump is touting this development as being thanks to his efforts, while ignoring the comment from Kim where he said he doesn't need to do tests anymore because N Korea is now fully nuclearized. Of course that's not Trump's fault, but he's ignoring the reality that N Korea now has the upper hand is is never going to agree to give up its nuclear weapons. The only two ways it would do that were if either a) China shut off all trade and aid such that the regime in Peongyang would collapse, or b) the US engaged in military conflict. Neither will happen. China wants a N Korea buffer on the Korean Peninsula, and doesn't want a unified Korea with the US as an ally on its doorstep. The US can't risk a conflict that could result in millions of lives lost.

So the talks will come and go. Platitudes will be given and received. N Korea may make some promises, but they will certainly not allow themselves to be verifiably denuclearized. Tensions will ease somewhat and Trump will take credit. Indeed, lower tensions are positive, but that's as far as this process will go. Kim will have gained legitimacy and standing by having met with the US president, and he will have had to give very little in return.
Quote Reply
Re: Whoa! Fat (NorKs) May Have Just Agreed to Denuclearize the Korean Peninsula [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Kay Serrar wrote:
trail wrote:
SH wrote:

It is interesting that Xi can meet with Kim and nobody bats an eye, but if Trump meets with Kim it'll be this huge symbolic nightmare. I'm tempted to classify that whole area of concern under "tribally induced panic attacks".


First, it definitely batted some eyes because it was the first known departure of Kim from North Korea since he took power.

But aside from that China and NK are both autocratic one-party Communist one-party states whose interests are largely aligned. Why would anyone bat an eye over them meeting?

Also Kim went to Xi. Xi didn't come running to Kim.

In any case I'm sticking to my Day 1 prediction that it's not happening. Here we are in April, ~1 month away, and total radio silence. And Bolton, the new National Security Advisor said the trip would just be to "deliver an ultimatum." Uh-huh. Making the President cross the DMZ to deliver an ultimatum from Dr. Regime-Change. Good plan.


I think the meeting is more likely to happen now that N Korea has said it will stop its missile tests. Naturally Trump is touting this development as being thanks to his efforts, while ignoring the comment from Kim where he said he doesn't need to do tests anymore because N Korea is now fully nuclearized. Of course that's not Trump's fault, but he's ignoring the reality that N Korea now has the upper hand is is never going to agree to give up its nuclear weapons. The only two ways it would do that were if either a) China shut off all trade and aid such that the regime in Peongyang would collapse, or b) the US engaged in military conflict. Neither will happen. China wants a N Korea buffer on the Korean Peninsula, and doesn't want a unified Korea with the US as an ally on its doorstep. The US can't risk a conflict that could result in millions of lives lost.

So the talks will come and go. Platitudes will be given and received. N Korea may make some promises, but they will certainly not allow themselves to be verifiably denuclearized. Tensions will ease somewhat and Trump will take credit. Indeed, lower tensions are positive, but that's as far as this process will go. Kim will have gained legitimacy and standing by having met with the US president, and he will have had to give very little in return.

I'm just wondering if this is what you're *hoping* will happen based on who is in the White House?

A ho-hum agreement/meeting that didn't really do anything (the Iran nuclear deal) was hailed as the pinnacle of diplomacy with the last guy. If, as is likely and as you suggest, nothing really happens other than the already increased diplomacy....then oh well. Still better than the trend in the last few decades.

I think engagement is good. I think Kim agreeing not to test more nukes is good. I think Kim leaving his Country to go to China is good. I hope it leads to a more peaceful Korean peninsula.


----------------------------------------------------------------

My training
Quote Reply
Re: Whoa! Fat (NorKs) May Have Just Agreed to Denuclearize the Korean Peninsula [wimsey] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
wimsey wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
wimsey wrote:
You can cite all the online dictionaries you want, you'll never convince this son of an English professor that "denuclearize" is a word.

Really? Why? Words are what we create to communicate a thought. If it does that, it is a valid word.


Blah blah blah...if it sounds like I'm being dismissively patronizing, it's because I am. Yes, language evolves and is meant to communicate, but it also has basic rules and a generally accepted vocabulary, and people just making shit up because it sounds neat or saves them a couple keystrokes is glib and lazy. My biggest pet peeve is the over-proliferation of portmanteau words (metrosexual, gaydar, webinar, bromance, chillax...on and on, aren't you clever) but the "verbing" of nouns and adjectives is a close second.



Yet, you just used the word 'portmanteau'...which actually means coat hanger in French ;-)
Quote Reply
Re: Whoa! Fat (NorKs) May Have Just Agreed to Denuclearize the Korean Peninsula [stal] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
stal wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
trail wrote:
SH wrote:

It is interesting that Xi can meet with Kim and nobody bats an eye, but if Trump meets with Kim it'll be this huge symbolic nightmare. I'm tempted to classify that whole area of concern under "tribally induced panic attacks".


First, it definitely batted some eyes because it was the first known departure of Kim from North Korea since he took power.

But aside from that China and NK are both autocratic one-party Communist one-party states whose interests are largely aligned. Why would anyone bat an eye over them meeting?

Also Kim went to Xi. Xi didn't come running to Kim.

In any case I'm sticking to my Day 1 prediction that it's not happening. Here we are in April, ~1 month away, and total radio silence. And Bolton, the new National Security Advisor said the trip would just be to "deliver an ultimatum." Uh-huh. Making the President cross the DMZ to deliver an ultimatum from Dr. Regime-Change. Good plan.


I think the meeting is more likely to happen now that N Korea has said it will stop its missile tests. Naturally Trump is touting this development as being thanks to his efforts, while ignoring the comment from Kim where he said he doesn't need to do tests anymore because N Korea is now fully nuclearized. Of course that's not Trump's fault, but he's ignoring the reality that N Korea now has the upper hand is is never going to agree to give up its nuclear weapons. The only two ways it would do that were if either a) China shut off all trade and aid such that the regime in Peongyang would collapse, or b) the US engaged in military conflict. Neither will happen. China wants a N Korea buffer on the Korean Peninsula, and doesn't want a unified Korea with the US as an ally on its doorstep. The US can't risk a conflict that could result in millions of lives lost.

So the talks will come and go. Platitudes will be given and received. N Korea may make some promises, but they will certainly not allow themselves to be verifiably denuclearized. Tensions will ease somewhat and Trump will take credit. Indeed, lower tensions are positive, but that's as far as this process will go. Kim will have gained legitimacy and standing by having met with the US president, and he will have had to give very little in return.

I'm just wondering if this is what you're *hoping* will happen based on who is in the White House?

A ho-hum agreement/meeting that didn't really do anything (the Iran nuclear deal) was hailed as the pinnacle of diplomacy with the last guy. If, as is likely and as you suggest, nothing really happens other than the already increased diplomacy....then oh well. Still better than the trend in the last few decades.

I think engagement is good. I think Kim agreeing not to test more nukes is good. I think Kim leaving his Country to go to China is good. I hope it leads to a more peaceful Korean peninsula.

I guess you missed the bit where I said lower tensions are a positive.

It's not what I'm hoping will happen. It's pretty clear from my words that it's what I think will happen.

I would hope for a reunified Korea, but as I said, China and Kim likely don't want that.
Quote Reply

Prev Next