North Korea Declares Itself a Nuclear Weapons State (bbc.com) 171
North Korea has passed a law declaring itself to be a nuclear weapons state, according to state news agency KCNA. The country's leader Kim Jong-un called the decision "irreversible" and ruled out the possibility of any talks on denuclearisation, it said. From a report: The law also enshrines the country's right to use a pre-emptive nuclear strike to protect itself. Despite crippling sanctions, Pyongyang has conducted six nuclear tests between 2006 and 2017. It has continued to advance its military capability - in breach of United Nations Security Council resolutions - to threaten its neighbours and potentially even bring the US mainland within striking range. Mr Kim carried out long-range launches and nuclear tests in 2019 following two headline-grabbing but inconclusive summits with then US president Donald Trump. But talks between the countries have since stalled.
Although the Biden administration has indicated it's willing to talk to Pyongyang, it hasn't said whether President Joe Biden would meet Mr Kim. The White House also said its attempts to contact Pyongyang and overtures of help over its Covid outbreak had gone unanswered so far. The US reviewed its North Korea policy last year and reiterated that "complete denuclearisation" of the Korean peninsula was the goal. Mr Biden said he would pursue it with a mix of diplomacy and "stern deterrence". Mr Kim responded by saying his country must prepare for both "dialogue and confrontation."
Although the Biden administration has indicated it's willing to talk to Pyongyang, it hasn't said whether President Joe Biden would meet Mr Kim. The White House also said its attempts to contact Pyongyang and overtures of help over its Covid outbreak had gone unanswered so far. The US reviewed its North Korea policy last year and reiterated that "complete denuclearisation" of the Korean peninsula was the goal. Mr Biden said he would pursue it with a mix of diplomacy and "stern deterrence". Mr Kim responded by saying his country must prepare for both "dialogue and confrontation."
No, they declared themselves a sovereign nation. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't have nukes you get invaded. If you give up your nukes you get invaded. Thanks to our greed, our post 9/11 anger and our turning a blind eye to war crimes it's become 100% clear that the only way to be a sovereign nation is to have nukes. If you don't it's only a matter of time. The final straw was when a change in US Presidents scuttled the Iran deal.
It's no longer possible to avoid nuclear weapons proliferation. Anyone without nukes will be swallowed up, their land and property stolen. We're thieves. Everyone is. And we've shown our hand repeatedly.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't have nukes you get invaded.
When is Canada getting invaded then?
Re: (Score:2)
They don't need to invade Canada, we do whatever the US wants anyway and they already own half the country.
Re: (Score:2)
But, say, if we cozied up to China or Russia or kicked American corporations out ... regime change, baby.
Re: (Score:2)
Canada?!?
I doubt we'd bother, even if we were complete assholes. It's not like Canada has a population higher than California alone does....
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, it wouldn't be nice to do something like that, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, we thought it's polite to teach them our values. Cultural exchange is when we exchange your culture for ours, right?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What happened not long back when Kim was supposedly near being on his deathbed and about to be out of the picture?
Remember, he disappeared for quite awhile, then sparse sightings of him showed him to be looking in pretty poor health, etc....news was discussing his possible successors...?
Re: No, they declared themselves a sovereign natio (Score:2)
There's a whole lot of nothing and mosquitoes.
No sane person invades Canada when you can buy a lot of it cheaply. It's cheaper than invading.
In about 15-20 years (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a little harder for Canada because without some sort of Bigotry or fear mongering to justify invasion it'll be harder to sell to the public, but we're gradually dismantling our Republic. We came really close to a dictatorship 2 years ago and didn't punish any of the ringleaders, so they're gonna try again. They'll keep trying unless and until we do something about it, which we don't seem to be wiling to do. So eventually one of them will succeed.
Once that happens you'll get the same situation we saw in Ukraine. A tired old Dictator looking for one last "hurrah". Nobody willing to tell him "no" since anyone who does gets thrown out a window or poisoned.
There's a small chance we'll pull back from it, but I'm skeptical. Gen XMZ own virtually no property, with M & Z being especially screwed. They're going to demand a New New Deal, and the 20,000 or so families that run the show don't want to give up even a smidge of money and power. They're God Men. Like the Pharos of Old. Or at least that's how they see it.
So the top 20k fams are gonna try and install a dictator to avoid parting with their money and power to any degree. About 20% of the country is gonna go along with that because they like being ruled over by a "Strong Man". Like the Taliban in Afghanistan the 80% will go along with it because they're just trying to get by and they're not overly violent like that 20%. Bam. Dictatorship.
From there the economy will do worse and worse (dictators are good at staying in power but lousy at running a country) and we'll start doing military expansion to try and fill our coffers. Like Rome did. But with a modern military and nukes.
Re: (Score:3)
One of the better assessments I've read.
I've been saying around 2025 would be the end of the USA for nearly 20 years and it just gets closer and closer when I really didn't put a ton into that estimate. Thing is as systems get more chaotic towards the end they by nature are less predictable. Like the climate, the long term trend is visible but the weather is too chaotic and getting more so.
2024 election will be just a few months before 2025. People won't even realize how bad it is just like 2020 was clearl
There's signs of Hope (Score:3)
Re:There's signs of Hope (Score:5, Insightful)
...If we can hold on to democracy for another 10 years the baby boomers seems to be a political force and the younger generations will demand that new new deal and still have the political apparatus in place to get it. It'll be another golden age. But we have to hang on for at least another 10 possibly 12 years
You know, that's what they said back in 1968: just wait until the old guard die and we, the flower-power make-love-not-war generation, get political power. We'll turn everything around.
Nope.
(Turns out that the hippie faction was colorful and loud, but not actually a majority of the baby boomers).
(But, on the other hand, the hippie faction did finally accomplish their #1 goal when the oldies finally died: they finally managed to legalize marijuana. Mostly.)
Re: (Score:2)
There is a risk that his VP will win the nomination when Biden is done his 8 years. Harris is just too unlikable to win. But odds are good she'll be primaried.
Let's say Biden does win another term, which seems likely
Not sure why that's "likely". A president with approval rating as low as Biden's has never been reelected. Other things being equal, I'd say his chance of winning another term would be small.
(Although other things are not equal. Most critically, it's not clear who the Republicans can run who isn't also hated.)
but is still not guaranteed. They then let Kamala actually do some stuff, and spend the next four years making her more likable. Over that period, a significant number of the never-Harris crowd will have died. The Republicans would have to come up with a compromise candidate to beat her in a fair election, and since they are now apparently incapable of that, odds are good that she would indeed win.
Maybe. But having been out of executive power for eight years, the Republicans might very well regroup and send up a more moderate candidate.
There is a strong voting block of "throw the bastards out
Re: (Score:2)
A president with approval rating as low as Biden's has never been reelected. [...] Although [...]* it's not clear who the Republicans can run who isn't also hated.
Yes, those are the two sides of the argument indeed.
having been out of executive power for eight years, the Republicans might very well regroup and send up a more moderate candidate.
Assuming Trump is defeated, and can finally be convinced to go away, that seems a plausible idea. Lots of the other worst scum will also be aging out around the same time.
There is a strong voting block of "throw the bastards out!" voters who will vote against the party holding the presidency regardless of which party that is. (This is one of the factors that installed Trump in the first place).
Yep. Those people got behind Bernie, and the Democrats shunned them, which is how they knew for sure the DNC was eee[etc.]vil. They were pretty sure already. They were right.
* ;) No malice intended with this artistic manipulation of your sentences.
Re: (Score:2)
The British Empire fell nicely; the American Empire doesn't need to fall like say Germany post WW 1.
But it will.
On a macro scale, Americans themselves are like the upper 1% ruling elite and they will become ruthless to keep their "way of life"
We won't even fight the shitheels here at home to keep our way of life.
Re: In about 15-20 years (Score:2)
The majority of police were Trump supporters. If they decided to openly support Trump's claims that the electron was stolen there wasn't anything the military could have done about it. The US military might won't kill US citizens on mass, they have to believe they are the good guys.
The end of democracy in the US was, and remains, a real possibility.
Re: (Score:2)
They will follow orders (Score:2)
They don't actually do this to have obedience they do it because if they don't they end up hiring people who get bored of the job and quit after they've spent a ton of money training them. The obedience is a side effect.
This means that if you can keep the fascists out of Congress and the Wh
Re: (Score:3)
No,we didn't. We had a riot that tried to become an insurrection but failed due to lack of popular support. Something like that hasn't a snowball's chance in Hell of success unless it's supported by at least part of the military
That's nonsense. Their goal was to disturb the process so that it could be interfered with by other means. If they had successfully prevented Pence from doing his job then there would have been more steps in the coup.
the US military takes their oath very, very seriously.
You are committing the sophomoric error of assuming that a body of people behaves in a uniform fashion. Are you new [nbcnews.com]? Is something preventing you from paying attention to your surroundings? [theguardian.com] Maybe try paying attention.
Re: (Score:2)
No I'm not; I'm also not committing your sophomoric error of assuming that the microscopic number of members of the armed forces described in those articles could prevail against the overwhelming number of loyal troops available to defend the Capitol against them if needed. And, I'll bet that I understand how those people think a lot better than you possibly could because I not only served, but ear
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks. Tough place to get a ribbon. 'Nam was winding down when I joined, so I ended up flying orbits (loops) in the Sea of O, keeping an eye on you-know-who.
Also, I'm reminded when I first read of the E4 Mafia. And some of the murders committed by Air Force personnel. I remember wondering "wtf is going on in USAF"?
Re: (Score:2)
Our ship was targetted by counter-battery fire twice. The second time, I happened to be the one who saw the shells landing in the water about 30 yards off the fantail and reported it. Later, I was told I'd earned that Combat Action Ribbon. I learned later that it was from some 6" howitzers, and all we could do was move back out of their range. As our gun was a 5" rifle, we may have out-ranged them, but our Captain wasn't taking chances that day, and I'm not going to seco
Re: (Score:2)
You do not need that many people to be in on it if you have enough of them in the right place. The military was also successfully kept out of it. They managed to bring them in for the next big event, though.
Re: (Score:2)
This is what I don't get about the left's arguments. Either Trump is a buffoon and a man-baby, or he's the smartest person in Washington.
Which one is it?
Neither, and your false dichotomy is as logically fallacious as, I presume, everything else you say. These ideas were not Trump's. I hope that answers your question, and that everyone can see why you were too cowardly to associate this trolling bullshit with your account.
Dictatorship in the US [Re:In about 15-20 years] (Score:5, Informative)
We came really close to a dictatorship 2 years ago... No,we didn't.
Yes, we did. We had a president who tried to throw out the results of a democratic election. If the president doesn't accept being voted out of office... that's a dictatorship.
The only reason he didn't succeed is that the vice president, Pence, said he wouldn't go along. (Pence, who is nevertheless hated by liberals, does not get enough credit for this stand.)
We had a riot that tried to become an insurrection but failed due to lack of popular support.
Yeah, that too. They also had the intention of stopping the vote counting which made Trump's loss official.
Something like that hasn't a snowball's chance in Hell of success unless it's supported by at least part of the military, and the US military takes their oath [govinfo.gov] very, very seriously.
The military also takes orders from its commanding officers, and the commander in chief is the president. If the commander in chief orders them to stand down, you might be sure that they would counterattack rioting civilians regardless of their orders, but I am not at all sure what would happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Pence did the country a solid. I notice that RINOs are starting to wear the badge proudly. I'm not sure I would vote for the Great White RINO, but we have done worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: In about 15-20 years (Score:2)
Yep. It's very silly, like imagining a bunch of thugs and middle class layabouts LARPing the secession of a city block was a credible attempt. Idiots all round.
Re: In about 15-20 years (Score:5, Informative)
There was no real fear of the rioters taking over the country. That was never the idea in the first place.
The idea was to have the rioters instill fear into those certifying the votes. And in this respect they succeeded. If they had managed to get Pence to evacuate then they could have postponed the certification for days. And who knows what was planned to happen in that time frame. But ideally they would have declared the voting as fraudulent in swing states and opted to use the "alternative" electors for voting. It didn't work but it was not that far off.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: In about 15-20 years (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: In about 15-20 years (Score:5, Informative)
Secret Service? They weren't even around. It was the Capitol police [youtube.com] who bore the brunt of attacks which inluded being punched, stabbed with flag poles [youtube.com] (American flag attached), beaten with clubs, pepper sprayed, and bear sprayed, to name just a few items those "peaceful" [youtube.com] protestors used.
But yeah, no serious risk whatsoever as the terrorists tried to breach [nbcnews.com] the Capitol.
Re: (Score:2)
During which other insurrections was the Prez moved to his bunker?
Re: In about 15-20 years (Score:5, Insightful)
Chanting for the death of the Vice President, and plotting the kidnapping of the second in line for President puts this in a different category than the rest.
It was a much bigger risk than you realize (Score:5, Informative)
The goal was to kill enough members of Congress on the Democratic party side so that the Republicans would have the votes needed to push whatever they needed through. It's a classic soft coup technique and they're going to try it again in the next 10 years.
You don't have to be good at it (Score:5, Insightful)
When this happens it's not going to be about who's the best at taking power it's going to be who's the most violent and brutal. 20% of Americans will choose that person because they secretly were not so secretly want that violence and brutality. And when faced with that level of violence and brutality the other 80% will keep their head down and hope for the best.
That's how you get dictatorships. You have to stop it before the violence starts otherwise whoever is the best of violence becomes your new ruler
Re: You don't have to be good at it (Score:2)
I definitely agree with curtailing violence, as quickly as possible. The difficulty lies in discerning real violence from mostly peaceful violence.
It's not curtailing violence (Score:3)
The problem is we don't want to do anything about it. It feels good to stand on a soapbox and talk about free speech and act like you can fix everything with free market economics. We have that idea put
Re: (Score:2)
[...] mostly peaceful violence.
"Mostly peaceful violence"?!? That is some serious next level bs there. In the same category as "Just let the killer kill you a little bit, you know, a teensy bit dead."
Re: (Score:2)
"The difficulty lies in discerning real violence from mostly peaceful violence."
Great line. Only moderates will get it. Perhaps we can use the Pareto Rule, or maybe Occam's Razor?
Re: (Score:2)
Or slightly pregnant. Anyways, great line.
"The difficulty lies in discerning real violence from mostly peaceful violence." Infinitely malleable when using a political wrench.
Re: You don't have to be good at it (Score:3)
It's confusing for us to work it out. I trust CNN and MSNBC to tell me when the violence is mostly peaceful. That or I wait for the next patch that'll update me on what I should believe.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I hope those we see with the blue hair, screaming the world has ended because of a pronoun, or uses the terms "micro aggression" and "safe space" with straight looks on their faces are just a very vocal minority
You know those are two different groups of people, right? The people with the blue hair, screaming the world has ended because of a pronoun, are old people. They're crying about being asked to use different pronouns, and how the world is ending because of it.
Wait, not they. You.
Re: (Score:2)
Mmm. I remember hearing about some minor celebrity losing their gig because for their three personal pronoun choices they put "Bing/Bang/Bong" or something like that. I'm hoping too, but I also remember a relatively popular liberal senator who gave up his gig after a joke pic of him almost touching a tittie surfaced online.
Re: (Score:2)
Because you've never heard about it, it's not relevant?
Are people actually being exceptionally precious today, or are they just acting out in different ways? And if this is all frivolous bullshit, isn't it better that than something more serious?
The rest of the world isn't worrying or dwelling on this bullshit...and we are in competition with them.
Yeah, that competition is going to destroy us all.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be "The Silent Majority".
Re: (Score:2)
When is Canada getting invaded then?
NATO means you have America's nukes, just an Article 5 away.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't have nukes you get invaded.
When is Canada getting invaded then?
They have the US nuclear defense, as the american keep mistaking them for their 51 state
Re: (Score:2)
They have agreed to no nukes, but they also aren't constantly threatening to invade or blow up their neighbors. WTF is up with that region of the world where Russia wants to invade everyone and the surrounding countries want to destroy each other? Morons.
Re: (Score:2)
all the descendants of neanderthals seem to have an anti-social streak?
So nothing substantive has changed (Score:5, Insightful)
They just wrote it down.
Face it, North Korea was never going to give up its nukes. It's quite literally the only bargaining chip they have.
Re:So nothing substantive has changed (Score:5, Insightful)
What would you do? China wants to retake Taiwan and Russia wants to retake everyone but they just happen to be focused towards Europe today.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps the media thinks they're worried about the US because, technically, the Korean War *never ended*. We're in a very long ceasefire. Most Americans may have forgotten that, being all the way across the ocean as we are, but I promise you that North and South Korea and Japan never have.
Re: So nothing substantive has changed (Score:2)
North Korea isn't bordered by Russia.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
India and Pakistan are both also nuclear powers, and also closer than the US :)
Re: (Score:2)
LOL. North Korea is completely subservient to China. And that Russian border, ... you can run the length of it in a couple of hours. China's Taiwan argument haves nothing to do with North Korea. China has made no claim to own North Korea and they also have literally nothing to offer China.
Re: (Score:2)
It's quite literally the only bargaining chip they have.
It's like saying the shit stuck to the sole of your shoe is the only bargaining chip you have. It literally hurts them in any negotiating position more than it helps them.
WOPR (Score:3)
Couldn't another nuclear state take North Korea's statement as grounds for a pre-emptive nuclear strike on North Korea to pre-empt North Korea's pre-emptive strike?
Re: (Score:2)
Preemptive nuclear strikes are only effective against non-nuclear nations, unless the preemptive strike takes out all the attacked's nukes.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, nonsense! If Russia wanted to nuke North Korea, they would without a worry in the world.
It's not like Korea can deliver a nuke to any place that Putin would consider important...
Re: WOPR (Score:2)
That's insane. North Korea has a very long border with China. Russia isn't insane enough to go irradiate any of China.
Re: (Score:2)
Preemptive nuclear strikes are only effective against non-nuclear nations, unless the preemptive strike takes out all the attacked's nukes.
I'm not even kidding when I say a single nuclear strike could wipe out the entirety of North Korea.
Re: (Score:2)
Preemptive nuclear strikes are only effective against non-nuclear nations, unless the preemptive strike takes out all the attacked's nukes.
Not saying it's a good idea to kill a lot of innocent people to stop a lunatic from getting nukes, but the logical corollary of that statement is that if you're going to do so, the right time to do it is early, while that country has only a small number of nukes, so that their retaliation capabilities are limited. And the right way is likely with stealth bomber aircraft so that they don't see it coming.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, although it would have been even better to do it before they had any nukes at all, thus reducing the retaliation risk enormously. But it is a heck of a decision to make to launch such an attack.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If that was the case then WW3 would have started long ago with all the other nuclear armed states and their bravado.
The only way the NK situation is going to be resolved is if Kim has a way out that saves face, or he is assassinated with no clear heir. The latter won't be pretty and could easily end up being even worse.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm afraid that the only way for North Korea to ever get out of the mess they're currently in, is indeed assassination. Of the whole family. And then just keep going with whoever pops up to try to take over.
Since that's not even remotely realistic (or moral), NK is most likely not going away any time soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Kim doesn't strike me as a fool. He must know that it only ends one if two ways, if not for him then for his as yet unborn son. I think if there was a way out he'd take it. What that would look like I don't know.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm afraid that the only way for North Korea to ever get out of the mess they're currently in, is indeed assassination.
As a note, the Soviet Union broke up as soon as people who was born after the Russian revolution took power.
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds absolutely MAD.
My moral relativism is slipping... (Score:3, Interesting)
Most nuclear nations have had their arms long enough to prove themselves to be reasonable respecters of the power they wield. Even the U.S. - the only nation to actually use them in war - has had 77 years since then sitting on a massive arsenal without incident. Hell, even India and Pakistan have yet to actually exchanged nuclear blows, and they've theoretically been armed for 40 years.
I'm a believer that any nation should be allowed to pursue nuclear weapons as a defensive measure if they so choose. And other nations should be free to pressure them. Allowing the bullies to be the only so-armed entities is unreasonable. I am not even opposed to Iran becoming nuclear capable, really. They are not a friendly actor, but I think ultimately they are a rational one.
But... I'm very close to just concluding that some nation's capitals need to be paved over and repurposed.
Re:My moral relativism is slipping... (Score:5, Insightful)
A long time ago a president said "I am not concerned with the man who has many nukes, I am concerned with the man who has only one."
(or words to that effect..I don't recall the verbatim quote)
Re: (Score:2)
big difference: the man who only WANTS ONE
Just 1 is a start but only needing one implies motive to actually use it.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with nuclear armed nations is that it only takes one guy in charge crazy enough to try using them. Kim doesn't seem to be that crazy now, but he has decades ahead of him and the possibility of senility.
As for other nations, we have seen how quickly democracy can collapse into dictatorship, and how even in democracies the leaders selected are not always what you would call stable and measured. You actually demonstrate the problem quite nicely...
I'm very close to just concluding that some nation's capitals need to be paved over and repurposed.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, even the U.S. we used to have a president (alleged, however) that wondered whether the U.S. could nuke hurricanes to make them go away...probably to preserve a festering golf swamp in Florida. He also drew a line with a Sharpie on a hurricane path map and attempted to pass it off as real. Fortunately, when DoD realized what pile of fetid dingo's kidneys he was, started keeping the really sensitive briefing material to themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a believer that any nation should be allowed to pursue nuclear weapons as a defensive measure if they so choose. And other nations should be free to pressure them. Allowing the bullies to be the only so-armed entities is unreasonable. I am not even opposed to Iran becoming nuclear capable, really. They are not a friendly actor, but I think ultimately they are a rational one.
Are you by any chance Dutch? This crap sounds like the stuff Dutch people say on Slashdot all the time.
Anyway, let's see if you stick to your guns when in a few years North Korea says to South Korea "Surrender your entire country to us or we'll nuke you". Kim is not the rational player you think he is. Don't be surprised if he paints himself into a corner and feels that he has to do this.
Your beliefs about Iran are not rational. Look up the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. The minute Iran
Re: (Score:2)
In case you missed the implication, I don't view North Korea as a rational actor, and I'm perilously close to thinking we should just pave over Pyonyang.
I could look up the Iranian Revolutionary Guards (although with no guidance from you on what I should look for, I'm not likely to), but I could just as easily look up all of the questionable shit associated with every major nation.
Re: (Score:2)
"The minute Iran has nukes, they're going to attack Israel. It may end up being suicide, but the IRG are religious fanatics and they believe they can't lose."
You're free to paint Iran in whatever pastel set of cartoony colours you choose to use. But I think you're wrong. If Iran was that single-mindedly convinced of their victory, and that hell-bent on destruction, there wouldn't have been a nuclear deal in the first place.
In other news today... (Score:5, Insightful)
Guess Kim is feeling a bit ignored with all the other stuff going on right now.
Re: (Score:2)
N Korea could fire everything they have off and a lot of people would get hurt but the world wouldn't end.
US and Russia? Yeah, let's not piss either of these two off. Scary as hell.
Re: (Score:2)
South Korea and Japan.
Re: (Score:2)
Kimmie boy knows that if he as much as tries to launch a nuke towards either country, his is turned into glass before the day is over.
Re: (Score:2)
It is _astonishing_ how quickly public opinion shifts.
Go back 10-20 years ago, and hundreds of million of Americans would have been willing to go to war and kill hundreds of thousands of people to prevent North Korea from getting a nuclear weapon. We have crippling, coordinated global sanctions on North Korea to prevent this, and we've had them for decades. We have tens of thousands of troops in South Korea and Japan to contain North Korea. It's been one of the biggest potential conflict zones in most of ou
North Korea is the Barking Dog at China's Foot (Score:2)
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Because they want nukes? When are you getting rid of yours?
Re: (Score:2)
Let the grown ups talk. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are aware that the former alleged president has been saving Kimmy's love letters?
Turning NK into glass would spread radiation around the world.
Re: (Score:2)
How about a nice game of chess?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They're still siting
Learn English before trolling, Vanya.
Re: (Score:2)
Most comprehensive list? But how were the numbers assigned?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)