President Trump & the USA

[Guest]

Teresa May being all strong and stable trying to get her oar in on the NK situation. Nothing to do with trying to get the soundbite heard above the Eu ripping the government a new one today.

[Nick]

18 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Are you sure?

 

I thought satellites were a prerquesite for ICBM's. 

 

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2017/08/17/Expert-Guam-image-in-Kim-Jong-Un-photo-from-6-years-ago/8441502945528/

[Guest MattP]

25 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Teresa May being all strong and stable trying to get her oar in on the NK situation. Nothing to do with trying to get the soundbite heard above the Eu ripping the government a new one today.

You aren't even trying to hide your support for the EU negotiating team over our own anymore are you?

 

Amazing you tried to deny this at first, what kind of a person revels in the opposition to their own government leaking information and trying to worsen any chance of a deal? 

 

Really, really bizarre Toddy.

 

For what it's worth I think we should start to think about walking away full stop, Varoufakis appears to have been spot on when he said you can't negotiate with these people and I'm still baffled as to why the onus is on us to come up with a figure for what they believe we owe them, really can't work it out.

[Guest MattP]

After this incident does anyone really think we should just still continue to allow the regime to develop whatever it pleases?

 

How long to we shirk our responsibility to this?

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, MattP said:

After this incident does anyone really think we should just still continue to allow the regime to develop whatever it pleases?

 

How long to we shirk our responsibility to this?

The Chinese said this earlier. Hard to disagree

 

China called for restraint and warned that the situation on the Korean peninsula had reached “a tipping point approaching a crisis”.

The foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying told a daily press briefing in Beijing: “Think hard about it, who do you think should take the blame, if China is urging all parties to calm down while one party holds constant military exercises … and the other is constantly launching missiles?”

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, MattP said:

You aren't even trying to hide your support for the EU negotiating team over our own anymore are you?

 

Amazing you tried to deny this at first, what kind of a person revels in the opposition to their own government leaking information and trying to worsen any chance of a deal? 

 

Really, really bizarre Toddy.

 

For what it's worth I think we should start to think about walking away full stop, Varoufakis appears to have been spot on when he said you can't negotiate with these people and I'm still baffled as to why the onus is on us to come up with a figure for what they believe we owe them, really can't work it out.

Its not about supporting the eu team matty. Its about showing the reality of the hash the tories are making of this negotiation. We need them out of office. 

[Guest MattP]

4 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Its not about supporting the eu team matty. Its about showing the reality of the hash the tories are making of this negotiation. We need them out of office. 

Where is your evidence for the hash they have made of it? You just seem to believe anything and everything the EU team leaks or the pro-remain press throw out without even thinking to critic or question it.

 

Out of office? Sorry we had an election and there was no call for the Tories to leave office. They won the most seats and got the most votes.

 

Who should take over? Labour, a party who changed position again on Brexit just this week? Be serious. 

 

(Mods move this to politics thread)

[leicsmac]

45 minutes ago, MattP said:

After this incident does anyone really think we should just still continue to allow the regime to develop whatever it pleases?

 

How long to we shirk our responsibility to this?

Yep.

 

And the majority of folks in South Korea still think so, and the market there isn't really paying much attention to this latest piece of showmanship either. Because they still see it for what it is - a bluff. TBH 2010 (when the Cheonan was sunk and Yeonpyeong island was shelled) was probably a more tense year than this. Because the Japanese made no move to intercept this

 

The general situation hasn't changed despite this, and it's a little frustrating that certain sections the media are going round stating that the sky is falling again - though I guess that's to be expected.

 

One more thing...if people believe the status quo to be unacceptable, then posit regime change in NK as the solution - a course of action that will inevitably lead to hundreds of thousands of casualties (if not more) and at least the partial destruction of a well-functioning and well-advanced democracy - in the name of an course of action that is unlikely to ever happen...that is still more unacceptable IMO.

[James.]

This isn't unprecedented either is it? They fired missiles over Japan in late 90's and again in 2009 if I remember what I read earlier correctly.

[Guest MattP]

I do hope you are right Mac, if you aren't the consequences for the World will be disastrous.  

 

When I say "take action" BTW I'm not advocating regime change or a reunification as that would obviously force the Chinese into action.

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, James. said:

This isn't unprecedented either is it? They fired missiles over Japan in late 90's and again in 2009 if I remember what I read earlier correctly.

Yeah, though in those two circumstances they said the missiles were carrying satellites. Make of that what you will.

 

6 minutes ago, MattP said:

I do hope you are right Mac, if you aren't the consequences for the World will be disastrous.  

 

When I say "take action" BTW I'm not advocating regime change or a reunification as that would obviously force the Chinese into action.

I honestly have no reason to suspect I'm not right on this one...but we shall see.

 

What possible other action can be posited that would change the situation fundamentally other than full-scale war/regime change? I'm thinking that most halfway houses (like targetting the launch/enrichment sites in some way) would inevitably escalate there anyway. Or would more or a different kind of diplomatic pressure work, perhaps?

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, MattP said:

I do hope you are right Mac, if you aren't the consequences for the World will be disastrous.  

 

When I say "take action" BTW I'm not advocating regime change or a reunification as that would obviously force the Chinese into action.

Well then, exactly what are you advocating?

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

What possible other action can be posited that would change the situation fundamentally other than full-scale war/regime change? I'm thinking that most halfway houses (like targetting the launch/enrichment sites in some way) would inevitably escalate there anyway. Or would more or a different kind of diplomatic pressure work, perhaps?

I was reading about the deal Clinton put together last week where they closed plants in response to a relaxation of sanctions and allowing oil to pass in, I know it fell apart and the Chinese are now a superpower with access but why not take that route again.

 

It might not be viable but it's certainly better than what the two leaders since have tried (Bush, sanctions hard rhetoric -Obama, do nothing and hope nothing happens) and offers something to change the current situation. 

 

Maybe there is something we can offer them on this whilst making it clear we will take military action if he doesn't negotiate, if self preservation is his thing he might come to the table.

 

Just leaving this to carry on leads us to one place eventually, them capable of striking the US, then the US probably can't get involved and then attention turns to the South, but if the South are as floosy about this as you sat then I suppose why should we bother anyway?

[Buce]

I would try a completely different approach. I would completely relax all sanctions (except against  materials needed for nukes); I would begin an immediate airlift of food for famine relief; I would open an embassy and attempt to normalise diplomatic relations; I would encourage relaxation of the military presence at the dmz by unilatarally withdrawing SK/ American units from it. I would cease provocative war games. In short, I would bring them back into the international fold. Once that happens, the process will begin where the people will have contact with the outside world, and that is the beginning of the end for the regime. 

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Buce said:

I would try a completely different approach. I would completely relax all sanctions (except against  materials needed for nukes); I would begin an immediate airlift of food for famine relief; I would open an embassy and attempt to normalise diplomatic relations; I would encourage relaxation of the military presence at the dmz by unilatarally withdrawing SK/ American units from it. 

I would cease provocative war games. In short, I would bring them back into the international fold. Once that happens, the process will begin where the people will have contact with the outside world, and that is the beginning of the end for the regime. 

Wouldn't the North Korean government pretty much resist every single thing you want to do though there?

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

I was reading about the deal Clinton put together last week where they closed plants in response to a relaxation of sanctions and allowing oil to pass in, I know it fell apart and the Chinese are now a superpower with access but why not take that route again.

 

It might not be viable but it's certainly better than what the two leaders since have tried (Bush, sanctions hard rhetoric -Obama, do nothing and hope nothing happens) and offers something to change the current situation. 

 

Maybe there is something we can offer them on this whilst making it clear we will take military action if he doesn't negotiate, if self preservation is his thing he might come to the table.

 

Just leaving this to carry on leads us to one place eventually, them capable of striking the US, then the US probably can't get involved and then attention turns to the South, but if the South are as floosy about this as you sat then I suppose why should we bother anyway?

That kind of deal might make some sense if everyone could get round a table and talk it out. I think the Chinese might be interested in that too, as it keeps things (about) the way they are. Something to aim for.

 

If the NK's do eventually get the capability to strike the US...they'll still never outmatch the US in terms of their nuclear arsenal. This would mean that the North still wouldn't seek to reunify the South by force, because they still know doing so would start a chain of events that would end in their own destruction, regardless of their success or not of targetting the US with their own arsenal. The US would still get involved purely because of that IMO.

 

I know the South appear to be totally relaxed about all of this, because they've been living with it for so long and they know how it plays out. Everyone still loses something, so the only winning move is not to play.

[Buce]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

Wouldn't the North Korean government pretty much resist every single thing you want to do though there?

 

It depends how much relaxation of sanctions and famine relief are worth to them. 

 

But, yeah, I'd be willing to take a completely unilateral approach to it. It's how you beat isolationism, imo.

[Guest MattP]

12 minutes ago, Buce said:

It depends how much relaxation of sanctions and famine relief are worth to them. 

 

But, yeah, I'd be willing to take a completely unilateral approach to it. It's how you beat isolationism, imo.

I doubt any government in the World would accept famine relief when they claim there is no famine.

 

Like any communist regime, the intention is to have the people reliant on the ration of the state to survive, it keeps them in check.

[Webbo]

28 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

It depends how much relaxation of sanctions and famine relief are worth to them. 

 

But, yeah, I'd be willing to take a completely unilateral approach to it. It's how you beat isolationism, imo.

Surely you're rewarding aggression? Threaten us with a big bomb, here's some aid. Doesn't seem very ethical nor a long term solution.

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Surely you're rewarding aggression? Threaten us with a big bomb, here's some aid. Doesn't seem very ethical nor a long term solution.

It's not like that particular tactic has been used lots of different nations to make deals of that type before though, is it?

 

I'd be interested to see if you have any view on a possible solution here.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

It's not like that particular tactic has been used lots of different nations to make deals of that type before though, is it?

 

I'd be interested to see if you have any view on a possible solution here.

Not sure if you're being sarcastic but I'm pretty sure that option has been tried before in this particular  case. I can't remember which president (either Bush or Clinton I think) gave aid if NK stopped their nukes programme. They took the aid, carried on in secret until it suited them to make it public again.

 

I don't know what the solution is, but me not knowing doesn't make everything else a good idea.

[Guest MattP]

7 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

It's not like that particular tactic has been used lots of different nations to make deals of that type before though, is it?

 

I'd be interested to see if you have any view on a possible solution here.

Do you think we should encourage it still? 

 

They wouldn't accept it anyway, but should we show the World thus behaviour will be rewarded?

[Buce]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

Do you think we should encourage it still? 

 

They wouldn't accept it anyway, but should we show the World thus behaviour will be rewarded?

 

It wouldn't be a reward for anything. 

 

However it may appear to the contrary, it would be the first shot fired in a velvet revolution. 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

Not sure if you're being sarcastic but I'm pretty sure that option has been tried before in this particular  case. I can't remember which president (either Bush or Clinton I think) gave aid if NK stopped their nukes programme. They took the aid, carried on in secret until it suited them to make it public again.

 

I don't know what the solution is, but me not knowing doesn't make everything else a good idea.

Not sarcastic at all, think it was unclear about what I was meaning. "Gunboat diplomacy" has been a mainstay of foreign policy for loads of nations for centuries in order to get favourable outcomes for themselves, I don't get why folks are up in arms about the NK's wanting some of that for themselves. Even if it is (again) all a bluff.

 

Of course the current situation and the idea that Buce put forward might not be good ideas, but then if no better ones can be suggested...

 

5 minutes ago, MattP said:

Do you think we should encourage it still? 

 

They wouldn't accept it anyway, but should we show the World thus behaviour will be rewarded?

I'm not sure in this situation tbh, but there should be at least some kind of gradual detente aimed for.

 

Behaviour like that has been rewarded a great many times in the past, by countries of all different ideologies.

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Not sarcastic at all, think it was unclear about what I was meaning. "Gunboat diplomacy" has been a mainstay of foreign policy for loads of nations for centuries in order to get favourable outcomes for themselves, I don't get why folks are up in arms about the NK's wanting some of that for themselves. Even if it is (again) all a bluff.

 

Of course the current situation and the idea that Buce put forward might not be good ideas, but then if no better ones can be suggested...

 

Really? I don't know why people get upset with Trump if they think NK's behaviour is acceptable.