North Korea

[Nick]

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]

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.

[Carl the Llama]

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

[leicsmac]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Lionator]

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]

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. 

[Buce]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/376548-lindsey-graham-war-with-north-korea-would-be-worth-it-in-the-long-run

 

....what.

[Buce]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Possible stupid question but why are the USA allowed nuclear weapons but North Korea aren’t?