Nick Posted 25 February 2018 Posted 25 February 2018 8 minutes ago, leicsmac said: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-43189691 Interesting times - honestly unsure as to where things go from here tbh. Phase two sounds fairly crazy eh? If they are willing to come to the table then begin talking. If Trump’s stance is that they must go through a process of nuclear disarmament before sitting down then I just don’t see that ever happening, sadly.
Buce Posted 25 February 2018 Posted 25 February 2018 8 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said: Phase two sounds fairly crazy eh? If they are willing to come to the table then begin talking. If Trump’s stance is that they must go through a process of nuclear disarmament before sitting down then I just don’t see that ever happening, sadly. It's the absolute hypocrisy that annoys me most. America is not only building more nukes but has even redefined how and when it would be acceptable to use them. The US under Trump is fast becoming a rogue state and the biggest threat to world peace. 2
Carl the Llama Posted 25 February 2018 Posted 25 February 2018 5 hours ago, Buce said: It's the absolute hypocrisy that annoys me most. America is not only building more nukes but has even redefined how and when it would be acceptable to use them. The US under Trump is fast becoming a rogue state and the biggest threat to world peace. Struggling to disagree with that final sentence and to think only a few months ago it was 100% Russia 2
leicsmac Posted 5 March 2018 Posted 5 March 2018 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-43282807 Encouraging signs. The ball is in the US court now, here's hoping they do the right thing.
sylofox Posted 5 March 2018 Posted 5 March 2018 3 hours ago, leicsmac said: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-43282807 Encouraging signs. The ball is in the US court now, here's hoping they do the right thing. Not sure they want to. World peace would cripple huge companies and legal arms trade. War is about proving weapons so you can sell them. Until wars take place on American soil they won't stop picking fights.
leicsmac Posted 5 March 2018 Posted 5 March 2018 5 minutes ago, sylofox said: Not sure they want to. World peace would cripple huge companies and legal arms trade. War is about proving weapons so you can sell them. Until wars take place on American soil they won't stop picking fights. Right now I'm treading a fine line between the cynicism of knowing you're right and the idealism that perhaps this time the military juggernaut won't get what it wants. I guess we'll see.
sylofox Posted 5 March 2018 Posted 5 March 2018 1 minute ago, leicsmac said: Right now I'm treading a fine line between the cynicism of knowing you're right and the idealism that perhaps this time the military juggernaut won't get what it wants. I guess we'll see. I would offer you a bet but think i it would be in poor taste. 1
Lionator Posted 5 March 2018 Posted 5 March 2018 2 hours ago, leicsmac said: Right now I'm treading a fine line between the cynicism of knowing you're right and the idealism that perhaps this time the military juggernaut won't get what it wants. I guess we'll see. This is basically why the North has nukes, because it's their best line of defence. It'd be easy for the US to justify an invasion of a country with a terrible human rights record who have no major defence. The North is a terrible regime yes, but the USA is worse in terms of the damage they've caused to many area's of the world.
breadandcheese Posted 5 March 2018 Posted 5 March 2018 40 minutes ago, Lionator said: This is basically why the North has nukes, because it's their best line of defence. It'd be easy for the US to justify an invasion of a country with a terrible human rights record who have no major defence. The North is a terrible regime yes, but the USA is worse in terms of the damage they've caused to many area's of the world. Whilst I know it's the popular position to bash America and call them the Great Satan, the security of South Korea is guaranteed by them. This alliance has stopped a reunification war on the Korean peninsula. I think we bash them too quickly. 1
Buce Posted 5 March 2018 Posted 5 March 2018 1 minute ago, breadandcheese said: Whilst I know it's the popular position to bash America and call them the Great Satan, the security of South Korea is guaranteed by them. This alliance has stopped a reunification war on the Korean peninsula. I think we bash them too quickly. Not for altruistic reasons, though.
leicsmac Posted 5 March 2018 Posted 5 March 2018 6 minutes ago, breadandcheese said: Whilst I know it's the popular position to bash America and call them the Great Satan, the security of South Korea is guaranteed by them. This alliance has stopped a reunification war on the Korean peninsula. I think we bash them too quickly. 3 minutes ago, Buce said: Not for altruistic reasons, though. There's something in both of these. It's pretty certain that US presence in SK and the promise of their support should things get bad that means that any war goes from a protracted probable SK victory to a rather quicker and much more definitive one, and so has dissuaded the NK's from attacking. However, though that's a good thing, it shouldn't be confused with the US being there out of some sense of altruism - they're there as a piece of the US projection of power around the world, nothing more.
breadandcheese Posted 5 March 2018 Posted 5 March 2018 8 minutes ago, Buce said: Not for altruistic reasons, though. No country has ever guaranteed the security of another country for purely altruistic reasons. But I trust a Western democracy to do this more than other nations.
leicsmac Posted 5 March 2018 Posted 5 March 2018 (edited) 21 minutes ago, breadandcheese said: No country has ever guaranteed the security of another country for purely altruistic reasons. But I trust a Western democracy to do this more than other nations. No country, Western or otherwise has ever guaranteed the security of another country for altruistic reasons at all - purely or even a little. There's no moral high ground to be claimed in high-level realpolitik; lest we forget, this whole situation began with two superpowers using the Korean nation as a piece on a board and chopping it in two. Edited 5 March 2018 by leicsmac
breadandcheese Posted 5 March 2018 Posted 5 March 2018 4 minutes ago, leicsmac said: No country, Western or otherwise has even guaranteed the security of another country for altruistic reasons at all - purely or even a little. There's no moral high ground to be claimed in high-level realpolitik; lest we forget, this whole situation began with two superpowers using the Korean nation as a piece on a board and chopping it in two. I'd like to believe a little bit that some countries are prepared to put more into another country than they will get out, but that might be naivety and the belief that there is some good around the world. The point about the moral high ground is that as a Western democracy, we have systems in place (legal system, NGOs, free press) to investigate any wrong doing by our forces. We naturally hold them to a high standard for their conduct and rules of engagement. I cannot have the same confidence of Russian forces in Syria, for example.
leicsmac Posted 5 March 2018 Posted 5 March 2018 7 minutes ago, breadandcheese said: I'd like to believe a little bit that some countries are prepared to put more into another country than they will get out, but that might be naivety and the belief that there is some good around the world. The point about the moral high ground is that as a Western democracy, we have systems in place (legal system, NGOs, free press) to investigate any wrong doing by our forces. We naturally hold them to a high standard for their conduct and rules of engagement. I cannot have the same confidence of Russian forces in Syria, for example. I'd like to believe that too - but if I do I'd believe it of all the countries doing so or none at all. Humanitarianism isn't a quality unique to one demographic IMO. I'd agree that there are more legal frameworks for accountability in place in Western nations to stop mistreatment during these various interventions...but oddly enough, that doesn't seem to stop many of them from happening (via either them being covered up through secrecy legislation or purely token punishments being given to low-level parties involved), which implies that such frameworks aren't often all that effective. I honestly think that a high-ranking US military officer, for instance, has absolutely nothing to fear from any NGO or journo or Senate committee, beyond getting early retirement with a fat pension.
breadandcheese Posted 5 March 2018 Posted 5 March 2018 (edited) It is at this point we'll have to agree to disagree, especially as it's taking this massively off topic into a discussion of moral relativism. But it's all interesting nonetheless. Edited 5 March 2018 by breadandcheese
leicsmac Posted 5 March 2018 Posted 5 March 2018 14 minutes ago, breadandcheese said: It is at this point we'll have to agree to disagree, especially as it's taking this massively off topic into a discussion of moral relativism. But it's all interesting nonetheless. Fair enough, and yes - it is interesting.
leicsmac Posted 6 March 2018 Posted 6 March 2018 http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/376548-lindsey-graham-war-with-north-korea-would-be-worth-it-in-the-long-run ....what.
Buce Posted 6 March 2018 Posted 6 March 2018 1 minute ago, leicsmac said: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/376548-lindsey-graham-war-with-north-korea-would-be-worth-it-in-the-long-run ....what. Probably in response to this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/06/north-korea-says-kim-jong-un-keen-for-vigorous-efforts-to-calm-military-tensions The Yanks so love a war.
leicsmac Posted 6 March 2018 Posted 6 March 2018 However, in slightly better news (interesting that this happened when the US was left out of talks): https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/06/world/asia/north-korea-south-nuclear-weapons.html
Countryfox Posted 6 March 2018 Posted 6 March 2018 3 minutes ago, Buce said: Probably in response to this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/06/north-korea-says-kim-jong-un-keen-for-vigorous-efforts-to-calm-military-tensions Load of cobblers ... the fat headed dwarf probably wants a big American rock star to perform at his next birthday party so is doing a bit of short term schmoozing with the Trumpster .... don’t worry he’ll be lobbing a few more missiles in the sea near Japan again soon ....
Wymsey Posted 6 March 2018 Author Posted 6 March 2018 What's Kim done to his hair.. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-43296671 Can't imagine, and doubt it'll ever happen, that him and Trump meeting face-to-face about this situation.
Innovindil Posted 6 March 2018 Posted 6 March 2018 In any event, I'd rather the tubby tyrant was talking about disarmament than blowing shit up. Maybe it's bull, maybe he's decided he's picking a fight with a nutter, maybe these trade restrictions are starting to hurt. Whatever is the cause of it, imo, it's welcome news.
Bryn Posted 6 March 2018 Posted 6 March 2018 Any dialogue is always better than no dialogue. It's been so long since the two nations have had a human relationship, the Olympics might well have done some good. We have no control over the situation so may as well be positive.
Guest seanfox778 Posted 6 March 2018 Posted 6 March 2018 Possible stupid question but why are the USA allowed nuclear weapons but North Korea aren’t?
Recommended Posts