Rants and Raves

[QUOTE=Ozymandias;3667242]My hunch about Kim is that, basically, I doubt he's fully in charge; it's even possible he's a figurehead.

North Korea operates, essentially, as a kind of totalitarian cult; they have always needed a charismatic, even godlike, figurehead. In this case, a glorious family of figureheads, Kims 1, 2, and (now) 3. NK is a complex enough operation for a government (ironic to consider, but keeping a dumpster fire of a nation like NK afloat is probably much more challenging than, say, running the USA, which can actually just buy and lease stuff it needs), so there is NO WAY it's the kind of one-man show it appears to be.

I think Kim's job is to *seem* borderline nuts ("he fed his uncle to a dog! WTF!" ), since that's what keeps the threat of their handful of rocketless nukes effective as a deterrent.

I think the USA, at the intelligence level, knows this as well, which is why no "decapitation" ops have been run against NK. Yes, it's remote and secure, but parachuting a team in to take out Kim is far from impossible; it hasn't been done because removing Kim won't *actually* leave NK rudderless. There's an executive presence either behind him or alongside him.

Note that this is pure conjecture on my part. I have some insider understanding of elements of Asia, but NK isn't included; it's just the gamesman in me looking at the situation: it's simply unfeasible that Kim - doughy, soft, luxury-loving Kim - is the kind of talented strongman who can operate as an authentic, totalitarian dictator; what we have here - I'd wager money on it - is a kind of oligarchy or similar.

So "mad Kim" is less a strategic threat than it is simply a psyop.

O.[/QUOTE]Interesting analysis. I have wondered the same thing myself: how can this fat weenie be the only "strongman" to keep that country in line. An oligarchy of sorts makes sense....and much more difficult to deal with.

[QUOTE=Ozymandias;3667242]My hunch about Kim is that, basically, I doubt he's fully in charge; it's even possible he's a figurehead.

North Korea operates, essentially, as a kind of totalitarian cult; they have always needed a charismatic, even godlike, figurehead. In this case, a glorious family of figureheads, Kims 1, 2, and (now) 3. NK is a complex enough operation for a government (ironic to consider, but keeping a dumpster fire of a nation like NK afloat is probably much more challenging than, say, running the USA, which can actually just buy and lease stuff it needs), so there is NO WAY it's the kind of one-man show it appears to be.

I think Kim's job is to *seem* borderline nuts ("he fed his uncle to a dog! WTF!" ), since that's what keeps the threat of their handful of rocketless nukes effective as a deterrent.

I think the USA, at the intelligence level, knows this as well, which is why no "decapitation" ops have been run against NK. Yes, it's remote and secure, but parachuting a team in to take out Kim is far from impossible; it hasn't been done because removing Kim won't *actually* leave NK rudderless. There's an executive presence either behind him or alongside him.

Note that this is pure conjecture on my part. I have some insider understanding of elements of Asia, but NK isn't included; it's just the gamesman in me looking at the situation: it's simply unfeasible that Kim - doughy, soft, luxury-loving Kim - is the kind of talented strongman who can operate as an authentic, totalitarian dictator; what we have here - I'd wager money on it - is a kind of oligarchy or similar.

So "mad Kim" is less a strategic threat than it is simply a psyop.

O.[/QUOTE]Kim is far from a figurehead, he's a total dictator like his father and grandfather. He rules like most dictators do, with a combination of fierce loyalty, threats, intimidation and harsh punishment. Guys like that can't afford to share power. If they did, someone would take advantage of that (like his uncle) and have to be purged. We don't know if his uncle and cronies were fed to hungry dogs and ripped to shreds, blown apart by an anti-aircraft gunfire or other means; however, we do know that once someone falls out of favor, no sign of their ever having existed will remain (ya can't be a dictator and leave evidence, ya know).

Why not drop a special ops team in and take him out? First, you'd have to find him. Shouldn't be difficult to find the only fat man in the country with the goofy haircut, right? Yet only his small, trusted circle knows where he'll be at any given moment so, by the time any special ops team were to find him, he could have ordered an all-out blitzkrieg offensive on the South. That means thousands of artillery (even 50 yo artillery can be effective), missiles, chemical / biological weapons, spies in the South disrupting C3 operations and a slew of other crazy shit. Plus, he now has nukes, an added bonus. He can hit everywhere in South Korea and hit it hard. Consider that you have approximately 25 million people in the greater Seoul area, most of whom would die instantly. Millions of others would follow once those chemical and bio weapons did their thing. Besides, the US military is notorious for being weak on NBC (nuclear / biological / chemical) training and wouldn't be able to counter it worth a shit.

Back in 1981 when Gen. Wickham was the USFK Commander, I asked him why we don't take out Kim Il Sung. We already knew that the North was doing research on nukes. Wickham said that it would be the perfect time to go in because it would only get worse with time, but Congress would never give the green light. Now we have a bigger mess. If the current Kim used nukes on the South and / or hit Guam / Japan, it would make Chernobyl look like a leaky bicycle tire.

Personally, I think we should economically and physically seal that country shut (starve them out). We're not doing nearly enough in that regard. A lot of these recent "tough" sanctions the UN has imposed have the effect of poking an elephant with a toothpick because our partner countries aren't enforcing them. Paraphrasing Gen. Colin Powell in 1991 (you have to "cut it off and kill it. ".

[QUOTE=Niteluvr;3669093]Personally, I think we should economically and physically seal that country shut (starve them out). We're not doing nearly enough in that regard. A lot of these recent "tough" sanctions the UN has imposed have the effect of poking an elephant with a toothpick because our partner countries aren't enforcing them. Paraphrasing Gen. Colin Powell in 1991 (you have to "cut it off and kill it. ".[/QUOTE]I deleted all the other stuff to save space and because we agree 100% on this.

Question, don't you think doing this would cause him to push that same button?

[QUOTE=Niteluvr;3669093]Kim is far from a figurehead, he's a total dictator like his father and grandfather. He rules like most dictators do, with a combination of fierce loyalty, threats, intimidation and harsh punishment. Guys like that can't afford to share power. If they did, someone would take advantage of that (like his uncle) and have to be purged. We don't know if his uncle and cronies were fed to hungry dogs and ripped to shreds, blown apart by an anti-aircraft gunfire or other means; however, we do know that once someone falls out of favor, no sign of their ever having existed will remain (ya can't be a dictator and leave evidence, ya know).

Why not drop a special ops team in and take him out? First, you'd have to find him. Shouldn't be difficult to find the only fat man in the country with the goofy haircut, right? Yet only his small, trusted circle knows where he'll be at any given moment so, by the time any special ops team were to find him, he could have ordered an all-out blitzkrieg offensive on the South. That means thousands of artillery (even 50 yo artillery can be effective), missiles, chemical / biological weapons, spies in the South disrupting C3 operations and a slew of other crazy shit. Plus, he now has nukes, an added bonus. He can hit everywhere in South Korea and hit it hard. Consider that you have approximately 25 million people in the greater Seoul area, most of whom would die instantly. Millions of others would follow once those chemical and bio weapons did their thing. Besides, the US military is notorious for being weak on NBC (nuclear / biological / chemical) training and wouldn't be able to counter it worth a shit.

Back in 1981 when Gen. Wickham was the USFK Commander, I asked him why we don't take out Kim Il Sung. We already knew that the North was doing research on nukes. Wickham said that it would be the perfect time to go in because it would only get worse with time, but Congress would never give the green light. Now we have a bigger mess. If the current Kim used nukes on the South and / or hit Guam / Japan, it would make Chernobyl look like a leaky bicycle tire.

Personally, I think we should economically and physically seal that country shut (starve them out). We're not doing nearly enough in that regard. A lot of these recent "tough" sanctions the UN has imposed have the effect of poking an elephant with a toothpick because our partner countries aren't enforcing them. Paraphrasing Gen. Colin Powell in 1991 (you have to "cut it off and kill it. ".[/QUOTE]Sealing off NK both economically and physically would be near impossible when you consider North Korea's long border with China. The key is China, if the Chinese wanted rocket-man gone overnight they could probably do it, but then there would be chaos in NK, resulting in a massive influx of North Korean's into China. This massive influx of North Koreans could prove too destabilizing for China, which is the last thing the Chinese leaderships needs or wants at this time. The Chinese also do not want a united Korean peninsula with USA Troops stationed just across their border. To summize, the Chinese fear the U.S. much more than the rocket-man dictator in NK.

Another thing about Kim Jong Un, he is bat shit crazy. If enough pressure is applied, I'm sure he would launch whatever nuclear / hydrogen / biological weapons he has.

Of course he can't win a war, BUT he could do great damage and go out with a BANG.

I don't believe there can be a bloodless victory in dealing with North Korea. People are going to get hurt, period!!

[QUOTE=SgtSoros;3669513]Sealing off NK both economically and physically would be near impossible when you consider North Korea's long border with China. The key is China, if the Chinese wanted rocket-man gone overnight they could probably do it, but then there would be chaos in NK, resulting in a massive influx of North Korean's into China. This massive influx of North Koreans could prove too destabilizing for China, which is the last thing the Chinese leaderships needs or wants at this time. The Chinese also do not want a united Korean peninsula with USA Troops stationed just across their border. To summize, the Chinese fear the U.S. much more than the rocket-man dictator in NK.[/QUOTE]Funny you should say that.

[URL]http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/28/politics/president-donald-trump-china-north-korea-oil/index.html[/URL]

I'm about fed up with this and now have decided to create this thread specifically to teach you guys how to post freaking links correctly. I don't want to see anymore bad links posted for 2018. None! Consider this you guys early New Years present from me to you. Ok guys, let's first start off with a few pre-requistes before moving on to the lesson. Let's start off reciting our A,B,C's. Sing along with me guys.

A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-I-H-K-ELLO-MENO-P-Q-are-S-T-you-V-W-X-why-Z, now we know our ABC's next I want you to sing with me.

Now, let's count from 1 to 10, guys.

1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10.

Now, let's hold hands and walk to the front of the yellow boys, guys.

Lesson 1:

Escort babylon website links. Look below:

[URL]https://escortbabylon.net/[/URL]#atlanta / reviews /4707988494/4125719.

[URL]https://escortbabylon.net/#!/atlanta/reviews/4707988494/4125719[/URL]

Link 1 above was posted the way most of you guys post it and the link is sparsed. Link 2 was posted the correct way and it was not sparsed. The difference between the 2 links? The 1 link was posted copy and paste right from the website. The second link was posted with [URL]URL open and closed tags[/URL]. You have to put URL open and close tags infront and behind the escort bablyon links in order for them to post correctly. Just like you place Quote open and / Quoute tags when you want to quote someone post to reply to it. Without the URL open and close tags before and after the escort bablyon links, the link will post sparsed and incorrectly. Capish.

Lesson 2.

Backpage Links. Stop using backpage links to post reviews. Those ads only last 1 week usually before they are deleted by the scam artist providers. Just google the chic's number and look for a link outside of the backpage ads. Those other links on other websites last longer than backpage links. Now, that backpage has numbers only on the ad, every link should post correctly when you post it. At first, with the wording some links would post incorrectly, but now they're good.

We complain a lot about simps overpaying for crap service but we rarely educate what we consider worth paying. I'm sure each of you have your own standards but these are mine.

My goal for any provider despite looks or location is 40 qv BBBJ / cfs. The closer I can get to that the better I can enjoy my nut.

60 is the highest I will go for a qv.

HH I aim for 80 or under but will go up to 120 if reviews, looks, rules and location are good.

I have no need for an HR or more.

I have 2 current go tos for 20 BBBJ.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMapalo;3670226]I'm about fed up with this and now have decided to create this thread specifically to teach you guys how to post freaking links correctly. I don't want to see anymore bad links posted for 2018. None! Consider this you guys early New Years present from me to you. Ok guys, let's first start off with a few pre-requistes before moving on to the lesson. Let's start off reciting our A,B,C's. Sing along with me guys.

A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-I-H-K-ELLO-MENO-P-Q-are-S-T-you-V-W-X-why-Z, now we know our ABC's next I want you to sing with me.

Now, let's count from 1 to 10, guys.

1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10.

Now, let's hold hands and walk to the front of the yellow boys, guys.

Lesson 1:

Escort babylon website links. Look below:

[URL]https://escortbabylon.net/[/URL]#atlanta / reviews /4707988494/4125719.

[URL]https://escortbabylon.net/#!/atlanta/reviews/4707988494/4125719[/URL]

Link 1 above was posted the way most of you guys post it and the link is sparsed. Link 2 was posted the correct way and it was not sparsed. The difference between the 2 links? The 1 link was posted copy and paste right from the website. The second link was posted with [URL]URL open and closed tags[/URL]. You have to put URL open and close tags infront and behind the escort bablyon links in order for them to post correctly. Just like you place Quote open and / Quoute tags when you want to quote someone post to reply to it. Without the URL open and close tags before and after the escort bablyon links, the link will post sparsed and incorrectly. Capish.

Lesson 2.

Backpage Links. Stop using backpage links to post reviews. Those ads only last 1 week usually before they are deleted by the scam artist providers. Just google the chic's number and look for a link outside of the backpage ads. Those other links on other websites last longer than backpage links. Now, that backpage has numbers only on the ad, every link should post correctly when you post it. At first, with the wording some links would post incorrectly, but now they're good.[/QUOTE]URLs also get parsed. When you copy and paste them directly. .

How many decades do you think it will take for american society to change it's views on decriminalization / legalization of prostitution? I think its possible seeing how sex for pleasure purposes is not so taboo anymore. Also the millienial anti slutt shaming campaign makes being a sex worker more legitimate in the eyes of society imo.

[QUOTE=GobMan;3675306]How many decades do you think it will take for american society to change it's views on decriminalization / legalization of prostitution? I think its possible seeing how sex for pleasure purposes is not so taboo anymore. Also the millienial anti slutt shaming campaign makes being a sex worker more legitimate in the eyes of society imo.[/QUOTE]If prostitution was legalized, simp rates would be charged every time.

I think it's best where it is right now.

I can see it now: 500 for the average blonde next door.

[QUOTE=GobMan;3675306]How many decades do you think it will take for american society to change it's views on decriminalization / legalization of prostitution? I think its possible seeing how sex for pleasure purposes is not so taboo anymore. Also the millienial anti slutt shaming campaign makes being a sex worker more legitimate in the eyes of society imo.[/QUOTE]Literally half of Americans don't believe in evolution.

We are a nation of ignorant, primitive mofos; something as progressive as decriminalizing prostitution? Not in our lifetime, probablyear old.

[QUOTE=TheParrot;3675326]If prostitution was legalized, simp rates would be charged every time.

I think it's best where it is right now.

I can see it now: 500 for the average blonde next door.[/QUOTE]What are rates like in other first world countries with legal prostitution? Quick googling shows Holland red light district at 50€ QV which is about 60qv American. And that is highly regulated tourist sector. I’m not convinced outlawing drives down prices.

[QUOTE=JusTheTip;3675777]What are rates like in other first world countries with legal prostitution? Quick googling shows Holland red light district at 50 QV which is about 60qv American. And that is highly regulated tourist sector. Im not convinced outlawing drives down prices.[/QUOTE]Legal stuff usually isn't cheaper, and often is more expensive (compare buying a stereo at Best Buy versus from the back of a van at QT). The difference is safety and consistency of service; when you can sue or otherwise track a business, it shapes up a bit.

So legal prostitution I would expect to be about the same pricewise, maybe with more available tiers, but it would be more regulated, more attentive to customer service issues, and so on.

Girls would have to be licensed, declare income, maybe provide proof of periodic STD testing, etc. And of course those costs would be passed on to the marketplace. And you'd see the usual price pressures in tourist areas and so on; I'm sure in Atlanta you could pay a premium to fuck a blond Buckhead model in Neiman Marcus's "Fuck Department", or head to Walmart to get sucked off by a bargain Rockdale County hood chick.

But this is never, ever happening in the USA.

O.

[QUOTE=Ozymandias;3675948]Legal stuff usually isn't cheaper, and often is more expensive (compare buying a stereo at Best Buy versus from the back of a van at QT). The difference is safety and consistency of service; when you can sue or otherwise track a business, it shapes up a bit.

So legal prostitution I would expect to be about the same pricewise, maybe with more available tiers, but it would be more regulated, more attentive to customer service issues, and so on.

Girls would have to be licensed, declare income, maybe provide proof of periodic STD testing, etc. And of course those costs would be passed on to the marketplace. And you'd see the usual price pressures in tourist areas and so on; I'm sure in Atlanta you could pay a premium to fuck a blond Buckhead model in Neiman Marcus's "Fuck Department", or head to Walmart to get sucked off by a bargain Rockdale County hood chick.

But this is never, ever happening in the USA.

O.[/QUOTE]You can't compare stolen goods with services. My brother lives in CO and legal weed is cheaper and better.