Jump to content


Advanced Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,127 Excellent

About mikebike

  • Rank
    Super Member

Recent Profile Visitors

8,979 profile views
  1. The world is a wee bit dumber today. RIP Dr. Hawking.
  2. Ok. So we are in agreement in the first paragraph. NK feels threatened. By the USA and her allies as I said. So. Who cares who caused historical aggression? Possibly the Kim family adheres to the "a good offence is the best defence" school of thought. My original point was, as of today, both sides feel threatened but ONLY one side has the ability to annihilate the other. Is this really controversial?
  3. The NK military has one mandate. Protect the supreme leader from threats within and without. If you do not think Kim feels threatened (with or without reason) by the USA you have a problem putting yourself into someone else's shoes.
  4. Why do you think the US is restricted to traditional warfare. Their nuclear arsenal is more than capable of what I suggested. Also never suggested that there wouldn't be collateral damage if the US annihilated NK. There is an actual threat to NK from their point of view, just as there is an actual threat to the US and her regional allies from their perspective.
  5. In the sense that nuclear weapons are not the same as traditional ballistic weapons they do not equate. But also in the sense that the US military could easily eliminate the entire country of NK vs NK's possible ability to do some damage to some part of the US or its allies, they do equate. In fact the scale weighs totally towards the US side in any conflict.
  6. So are you saying the a PLAN to increase prosecutions is the SAME as increased prosecutions? That is awesome news for me... my plan to earn 1 billion dollars means I now have 1 billion in the bank!! And where did you get the "except in CA" part of your fantasy?
  7. Yes a war mongering hawk is what's needed... LOL!!
  8. Hypocrisy, thy name is Trump Administration... you couldn't make this crap up.
  9. "The U.S. side needs to be very, very well prepared and know exactly what it wants to achieve, as well as what the U.S. is willing to provide in return." said Bonnie Glaser, an Asia expert at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies think tank. Well that doesn't sound like the current admin's modus operandi... "...it runs the risk of being more spectacle than substance." Ah there's the bullseye!!
  10. Yep, and since almost all of that wealth is in the hands of a very few it looks alarmingly like the USA is France before the revolution.
  11. I do not think that is prudent ultimately to have the most emotionally invested parties make that decision.
  12. Trump threatens to tax European auto imports

    And yet Renault are jumping into the pickup market this year...
  13. Fooled ya Australia!! The liar-in-chief was actually taken at his word by the poor, naive, Aussies... https://www.smh.com.au/national/no-surprise-in-donald-trumps-decision-to-apply-trade-tariffs-20180306-h0x23o.html
  14. Wow... "promoting islamic antisemitism"... where does one start with that?
  15. I cannot diminish your fantasy. If you choose to believe an untruth then so be it. Many my arse. Show me three members who said a month and I'll buy you a beer.