Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

What to do about North Korea?

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 5 of 6
 [ 112 posts ] 
What to do about North Korea?
Author Message
TreePosts: 110Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

Post Re: What to do about North Korea?

I am done with your lies and projections. You're not honest or rational and you're certainly in no position to judge my reasoning faculties. Even after I explained to you, you still can't even tell the difference between: a. a political prison camp b. a prison for unlawful enemy combatants which is what Gitmo is, regardless of how much you disagree with it, NOBODY IS GETTING SENT THERE BECAUSE THEY CRITICIZED THE US GOVERNMENT nor are the conditions as worse as NK camps.

Frankly, everything wrong about your position can be summed up in this quote:

It's very hard to know who the good guy is when it always seems to be the good guy who's firing the first shots.


This shows not only how confused you are morally if you can't even tell NK is the bad guy in this (but you're not in any sense defending NK no no), but how little you've been paying attention because NK fired the first shot a long time ago when it try to make the whole of Korea a communist dictatorship. Technically that war has never ended, we're just in a prolonged armistice.

(edited for clarification)

Have a nice life, Sparhafoc.
Sat Nov 04, 2017 10:58 am
TreePosts: 110Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

Post Re: What to do about North Korea?

Let's not forget that Sparhafoc unabashedly proclaimed in another thread that democracy is basically not that important, and that was in the context of talking about NK, thereby indirectly providing some legitimacy to the NK regime, but no no he doesn't defend or try to defend NK sure, I just have to take his word for it and ignore that if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

It might surprise you to know this, but a large swathe of the world is not democratic. Now, evangelizing about democracy may be nice for you, but you can't really use it as an undisclosed premise that everyone's obliged to accept.


Yup, some people including the Kim family are allowed to ignore the premise that they shouldn't come to power by force, abuse rights and govern without consent.

Keep in mind this is not Syria or Iraq. It's Korea. Korea has a history of democracy in the form of South Korea. Korea could easily be democratic as a whole and very successfully at that. A total waste of human potential that this morally confused simpleton just dismisses out of hand.

It will no doubt terrorize you to discover that many people on this forum can sit and discuss the negative components of democracy without once calling each other communist stooges.

Yeah, it's in the name of the forum.


Discussing the negative components of democracy isn't the same as justifying a dictatorial alternative to it.

I hope that clarifies why I will not retract any statement I made about Sparhafoc's character. I am not obligated to take him at his word that he's not defending NK's regime when his other statements contradict this.
Sat Nov 04, 2017 12:15 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1544Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: What to do about North Korea?

Tree wrote:I am done with your lies and projections. You're not honest or rational and you're certainly in no position to judge my reasoning faculties.


Listen chap. You have used repeated slurs, well-poisonings and red herrings. That's what makes your reasoning faculties open to being critiqued. Don't like it? Stop engaging in such childish ploys.

You should have stopped when you first tried calling me a North Korean stooge. That's when you jumped the shark.

So here it is again: it's easy to accuse people of lying, but you don't get to make such accusations without supporting your contention.

So where is it I am supposed to have lied?

What you called a lie before was quickly exposed as not, in fact, being a lie at all.


Tree wrote: Even after I explained to you, you still can't even tell the difference between: a. a political prison camp b. a prison for unlawful enemy combatants which is what Gitmo is, regardless of how much you disagree with it, NOBODY IS GETTING SENT THERE BECAUSE THEY CRITICIZED THE US GOVERNMENT nor are the conditions as worse as NK camps.


Thank you for evidencing my contentions about your irrational motivations.

I've spelled it out clearly, you've denied doing it, then you simply repeat it.

If we do unethical, immoral shit, then we can hardly use the accusation of 'them' doing unethical, immoral shit as the basis for going to war with them.

Now, that's a perfectly reasonable contention, but you can't contest it, you just get emotional with me each and every time. Your emotions do not stand in place of reason.



Tree wrote: Frankly, everything wrong about your position can be summed up in this quote:


Pro-Tip: everything you feel is wrong with my position but which turns out to be your feelies rather than a rational rejection.


Tree wrote: This shows not only how confused you are morally if you can't even tell NK is the bad guy in this...


There's no confusion on my part, only clarity. It's you who's confused about morality if you think it's something everyone else has to do but you and yours are not bound by it.


Tree wrote: (but you're not in any sense defending NK no no),


Again, as is clear to literally everyone else, no I am not defending North Korea. It's a form of well poisoning on your part which has been exposed half a dozen times. Poisoning the well may score you points with idiots, but not with people who employ reason.



Tree wrote: but how little you've been paying attention because NK fired the first shot a long time ago when it try to make the whole of Korea a communist dictatorship.


You are completely blind, aren't you?

Your stupid argumentation is all one-sided. You were wittering on about how the nuclear bombs dropped on the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki don't count because they happened decades ago, but you don't employ the same 'reasoning' here.

Of course, it doesn't apply here anymore than it applied to the other situation either.

In reality, North Korea hasn't fired any shots at the USA. You don't get to pretend that a civil war constitutes an act of aggression against another nation - that's just vapid bollocks.


Tree wrote: Technically that war has never ended, we're just in a prolonged armistice.


Technically, the war had ended, it's just that no final peace agreement was signed.


Tree wrote:(edited for clarification)

Have a nice life, Sparhafoc.


Oh, I will. Are you flouncing?
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
กบในกะลาครอบ
Sat Nov 04, 2017 12:36 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1544Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: What to do about North Korea?

Tree wrote:Let's not forget that Sparhafoc unabashedly proclaimed in another thread that democracy is basically not that important,...


A post after you accused me of lying, you are right back lying about me.

How droll.

No chap, you need to work on your reading comprehension. I said nothing whatsoever about the 'importance' of Democracy.

What I actually told you is that the members of this forum are perfectly reasoned and rational people to be able to debate the merits of it without getting shitty like you've been.

Again, you appear to be under the erroneous impression that the entire world operates according to the gospel of Tree.

If I were to contend that democracy is flawed, that would be my right to do so. Assuming I could provide a reasoned contention for my idea, then people could discuss it. However, you seem to think that every discussion must be about the character of the person doing the argument, which is factually a very irrational approach.

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.


Secondly, the irony is that in that thread of conversation you are appealing to, you accused me of lying - saying that I'd claimed that Kim Jong-un is a legitimate leader, when I'd clearly never said anything of the sort, and you'd just made it up as part of your patter about what a nefarious little North Korean stooge I am.

So I replied explaining that, while I didn't say that, it still doesn't stand as an unquestionable assumption that only democracies are legitimate.

viewtopic.php?p=183637#p183637


Sparhafoc wrote:So originally, you accused me of 'implying that King Jong Un (sic) is a legitimate leader" whereas, of course, I'd done nothing remotely like that.

I did, however, respond to that point by noting that he is factually the leader of North Korea. For that, I clearly deserve to tarred and feather, the sorry little liar that I am!


tree wrote: Yeah, no shit Sherlock. Not the same thing. Is he the leader? Sure. Is he the legitimate leader? No. Governments have to be chosen by the consent of the people to have legitimacy which means free and fair elections and a certain respect for basic rights. The Kims are some of the least legitimate leaders of our time by that standard.



It might surprise you to know this, but a large swathe of the world is not democratic. Now, evangelizing about democracy may be nice for you, but you can't really use it as an undisclosed premise that everyone's obliged to accept.

It will no doubt terrorize you to discover that many people on this forum can sit and discuss the negative components of democracy without once calling each other communist stooges.

Yeah, it's in the name of the forum.


I think the idea is to throw shit and see what sticks - but it would help if you remember which shit you'd thrown. Regardless, your contention in this thread is just another lie on your part, and unlike you, rather than just accuse you, I've actually shown the lie.



Further, you also seem to think you are telling other people about me, like I am on trial.

You couldn't be more wrong.

Look back through this thread and note the number of people who have criticized your position. Note how many people have done so for me. If you want to appeal to the audience here, I think you're going to find that your position is not simply accepted as gospel.

This is, as I've told you many times, because this is a forum expressly focused on reason, not on emotion, not on character assassination, not on tribalistic group-think.

So as much as you might have uncritically bought into your notions, and find it despicable of me to critique them, there's little point in appealing to everyone else who are similarly competent enough to see how little thought is going into your positions.


Tree wrote:...and that was in the context of talking about NK, thereby indirectly providing some legitimacy to the NK regime, but no no he doesn't defend or try to defend NK sure, I just have to take his word for it and ignore that if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...


Stop trying to character assassinate me by pretending that I am defending North Korea.

For all the mouthing off you keep giving, it's obvious to all concerned that you can't actually quote any instances of me defending North Korea, and you dismiss all my criticisms of North Korea as 'superficial'.

Your repeated insinuation says nothing about me, but it says an awful lot about you and what passes for reason with you.


Tree wrote:Yup, some people including the Kim family are allowed to ignore the premise that they shouldn't come to power by force, abuse rights and govern without consent.


The premise is not actually relevant to anything. Most nations came about by force, a complete lack of rights, and with zero consent other than the sword.

This is still not defending North Korea, it's defending reality from ideological revisionism.


Tree wrote:Keep in mind this is not Syria or Iraq.


Why?


Tree wrote: It's Korea.


:lol:


Tree wrote: Korea has a history of democracy in the form of South Korea.


How laughably inept. Korea isn't a country - North Korea is one country, and South Korea is another country. The last time Korea was one, it wasn't democratic in the slightest.

Prior to being annexed by Japan, Korea was officially an empire, under the rule of the Joseon Dynasty.

Now, I am hardly an expert on Korean history, but from the rest of the world's history, one doesn't assume that a ruling elite declaring an empire indicates a place of human rights, consent and peaceable governance. In reality, the peasants were ruled by the power of the state's bigger stick.

What happened after Japanese defeat is that the Korean peninsula became a proxy battleground between the USSR in the North, and the USA in the South. The Cold War staved up this division, and here were are today reaping the rewards.


Tree wrote: Korea could easily be democratic as a whole and very successfully at that. A total waste of human potential that this morally confused simpleton just dismisses out of hand.


Now, while it's obvious that you're a misguided neocon who thinks that it's perfectly just to wander round the world changing regimes for your benefit, you might be surprised to find that this makes some nations rather uncomfortable. They've seen what happens when the US comes bowling in with talk about setting people free - Islamic State is what happens.

For all your boyish exuberance, you're not going to solve anything by going to war. It's a delusion that should have been dispelled by the last couple of decades of world events.

Instead, the only way we're going to come to an equitable solution with North Korea is through diplomacy. As I've mentioned several times in this thread, instead of beating our chests at them and shaking trees trying to threaten them (which makes them respond by desperately seeking nukes to stave off the threatened invasion) we need to find ways to incentivize them to accept specific conditions. Similarly, we need the cooperation of China because, without it, North Korea is a) safe from American invasion and b) buffered against international indignation and sanctions.

These are just stark realities that cannot be dismissed as being about defending North Korea just because they don't involve engaging in a military campaign against them.

Really, it's transparent, Tree.

You want a war with North Korea - you've said so on several occasions.

Just because I don't want a war with North Korea, that doesn't mean I am an apologist for their regime. It's terminally illogical of you to believe so, and it's bloody stupid of you to keep trying to poison this particular well.

As I've explained to you plenty of times - my primary concern is the usage of nuclear weapons, full stop. That's also why I criticized the United States for using nuclear weapons against civilians - it let the cat out of the bag there and meant our consternation appears false. It's also why I keep spelling out how fucking stupid it would be to engage in a nuclear conflict, because I actually know the ramifications of such a contest and no one wins.

In reality, the nuclear armed nations are very much at fault here. We have paved the way for nations like North Korea to get nuclear weapons without any real international indignation holding because it is clearly hypocrisy. We still have massive stocks of nuclear weapons, we have upgraded them technologically, and we have allowed our 'friend' nations to develop and possess them while simultaneously acting like we've got a right to stop other nations from doing so.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... themselves

This may well be very inconvenient for your little patter, but closing your eyes and screaming LA LA LA at me isn't going to make it go away.

I've explained this to you in what is known in game theory terms as rational agency. While there is a threat of one of us 'good guy' nations invading another nation to change its regime, there is an imperative for that regime to possess nuclear weapons to stave an invasion off. While we 'good guy' nations have enough nuclear weapons to destroy every capital city on the planet, it rings hollow when we talk about how other nations are terrible for trying to possess them. While we allow nuclear proliferation to happen so long as its our friend, then we undermine any legitimacy we have in dealing with other nations.

For all your blathering about sedition and undermining western values, you don't seem to have a clue as to what those values are, or how we might go about exhibiting them. If we press the button and destroy North Korea in 'pre-emptive non-aggression' then no matter how abusive Tree becomes to me, I will still call us the aggressors. Someone has to have a conscience here, and its clear you're too rationally stunted to comprehend this.


Tree wrote:
It will no doubt terrorize you to discover that many people on this forum can sit and discuss the negative components of democracy without once calling each other communist stooges.

Yeah, it's in the name of the forum.


Discussing the negative components of democracy isn't the same as justifying a dictatorial alternative to it.


Except no one is justifying a dictatorial alternative to it, you are citing the above sentence supposedly to evidence me defending North Korea, even while it is not remotely doing what you are claiming it is.

Further, even if I wanted to set out an argument for dictatorship, then it's tough titties to you if you don't like that and don't want to read it - I am under no compulsion to write ideas only that jive with Tree - a guy who's a complete stranger on the internet, and someone who's not shown himself to be worth so much as a wazz when it comes to discourse.


Tree wrote:I hope that clarifies why I will not retract any statement I made about Sparhafoc's character.


The reason why you should retract your incessant bleating about my supposed character is because it makes you look like a total fucking crackpot who wouldn't know reason if it was buggering him up the arse.

Unless you're under the laughably inept assumption that other members here are buying into this baloney? Perhaps you should ask them! :)


Tree wrote: I am not obligated to take him at his word that he's not defending NK's regime when his other statements contradict this.


Firstly, the statements you cited supposedly justifying your accusation don't actually contain any defense of North Korea - just a fabricated spin you put onto it that remains illogical at each stage.

Secondly, if someone was wondering who was more likely to know my position - whether it was me, the guy expounding that position, or you, the guy accusing me of sedition, aiding and abetting the 'enemy' and of polluting the minds of innocent children.... who do you think is the more reasonable person to assume is correct?

You've come across as a tinfoil-hatted crackpot, and even though given plenty of opportunities to back off, you've doubled and tripled down.

It's wholly about your capacity for reason, Tree, and you will either learn this or you will flounce off complaining about boogeymen only you can see.
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
กบในกะลาครอบ
Sat Nov 04, 2017 1:15 pm
TreePosts: 110Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

Post Re: What to do about North Korea?

A post after you accused me of lying, you are right back lying about me.

How droll.

No chap, you need to work on your reading comprehension. I said nothing whatsoever about the 'importance' of Democracy.


I am not lying about your position, though maybe you are just too inept to understand or too dishonest to acknowledge the implications of your statements, none of which come in a vacuum.

Just because you don't outright say "I don't think democracy is that important" doesn't mean one cannot draw that conclusion reasonably. I mean hell, white nationalists say "we are not bigoted against blacks, we just think each race should stick to their own continent, America for whites, Africa for blacks", I guess you should just take their word for it. Besides, I know you don't really believe that because you've accused Sargon of Akkad of being sexist. Has he ever claimed he's sexist? No? Well then you should shut up by your own standards.

Let's go over it again, final time, then I will truly leave you to rant like a mad man if you don't come up with a better response, and let's also see how reasonable you are, I'll be far less indulgent with you this time:

It might surprise you to know this, but a large swathe of the world is not democratic.


Ad populum fallacy. Just cause there's a lot of them saying it doesn't make it just.

Now, evangelizing about democracy may be nice for you


This statement implies that it's bad thing to "evangelize about democracy".

Now what is democracy? In essence would involve regular free and fair elections, protections in place so the majority can't vote the rights of the minority away, separation of powers. These are not outlandish demands and you wouldn't want to live under an alternative. I will grant you, maybe some countries are incapable of having this system due to the culture, but it's still something they should over time strive towards.

If you think people (people like me included) shouldn't insist on having such systems whenever possible, then you don't think democracy is that important.

but you can't really use it as an undisclosed premise that everyone's obliged to accept.


If they don't want to accept it, that doesn't make them morally justified. There are people who don't accept the rule that bank robbery is wrong. This proves what exactly? It just proves they're dicks.

Now on a practical note, I don't think we should be involved is "spreading democracy" necessarily, but also we shouldn't allow non-democracies to fuck with our allies and our interests. I have no problem leaving NK alone as the shitty hermit kingdom as long as it scales back the nuclear program and recognizes SK's right to exist, relinquishing all claims to SK.


What I actually told you is that the members of this forum are perfectly reasoned and rational people to be able to debate the merits of it without getting shitty like you've been.

Again, you appear to be under the erroneous impression that the entire world operates according to the gospel of Tree.

If I were to contend that democracy is flawed, that would be my right to do so. Assuming I could provide a reasoned contention for my idea, then people could discuss it. However, you seem to think that every discussion must be about the character of the person doing the argument, which is factually a very irrational approach.

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.


My opening post entertains at least 5 different ideas to dealing with NK.

Granted I'm not at all a fan of the first option and think it's the worst option, you had to derail all that by going into "fuck America"-mode even though this is a topic about NK in 2017 and beyond.

Look back through this thread and note the number of people who have criticized your position. Note how many people have done so for me. If you want to appeal to the audience here, I think you're going to find that your position is not simply accepted as gospel.


Ad populum and speaking of them, I don't exactly expect your friends to be objective about it. Hell, I'm not objective about my friends' flaws or even my co-workers' all the time cause I actually want to get along. That said, you'll notice I haven't accused THEM of being NK defenders, mainly because they haven't gone out of their way to bash America like it's even relevant, make false moral equivalences and then insist on doing so again when debunked countless times. You're kind of a special snowflake here in that way. One person said it's too late to do anything about NK, well okay I disagree, but I don't think that alone is defending NK.


The premise is not actually relevant to anything. Most nations came about by force, a complete lack of rights, and with zero consent other than the sword.


So what? Some of them reformed and became more democratic.


How laughably inept. Korea isn't a country - North Korea is one country, and South Korea is another country. The last time Korea was one, it wasn't democratic in the slightest.


I explicitly said "in the form of South Korea". And yes South Korea has history. It wasn't created yesterday. It's almost 70 years of history which is more than what even my parents have been alive. Now who's strawmanning who?

Granted, Korea isn't a country, it's the same people. There is no reason to believe a united Korea will become like Iraq or that it can't be democratic with Kim out of power.

Prior to being annexed by Japan, Korea was officially an empire, under the rule of the Joseon Dynasty.

Now, I am hardly an expert on Korean history, but from the rest of the world's history, one doesn't assume that a ruling elite declaring an empire indicates a place of human rights, consent and peaceable governance. In reality, the peasants were ruled by the power of the state's bigger stick.


Not relevant to my argument. I'm talking about South Korean democratic history.

What happened after Japanese defeat is that the Korean peninsula became a proxy battleground between the USSR in the North, and the USA in the South. The Cold War staved up this division, and here were are today reaping the rewards.


Okay... And who do you believe is the guilty party in this?

There are really only 3 options, 4 if you count "I have no fucking idea":

1. US
2. USSR
3. both equally responsible

Now, while it's obvious that you're a misguided neocon who thinks that it's perfectly just to wander round the world changing regimes for your benefit


If it's an illegitimate regime that's fucking over our allies and legitimate business interests, yes.

Why is that a problem? Kim Jong Un needs to do exactly two things to get America off his back:

1. Give up the nukes
2. Renounce any claims to SK and stop committing petty acts of aggression towards other countries such as international kidnappings, cyber attacks, and even one assassination on foreign soil against Kim's half-brother

Remember, people pretty much ignored NK before they got serious about nuclear ICBMs.

you might be surprised to find that this makes some nations rather uncomfortable


Only those that aren't playing by the rules. European nations for examples aren't worried about being invaded by the US.

Are you worried, Britain? Let's be real.


They've seen what happens when the US comes bowling in with talk about setting people free - Islamic State is what happens.


Plenty of dictatorial regimes have fallen without an equivalent to the IS coming about. Look towards Nazi Germany, Shinto Japan, South Korea, the Eastern bloc countries which removed their dictators form power in late 80's early 90s and became stable quickly, or to Perestroika reform of Russia if you don't believe me. Granted Russia had some instability, it wasn't IS level.

I have no idea why you think it's rational to assume that whatever patterns happen in Iraq are valid everywhere on Earth for conflicts that aren't even similar, or only superficially similar. There is no one size fits all.

And as I've said, Iraq might have worked as 3 different secular countries with some permanent US troops to guarantee security, just like there are US bases in SK with 30k troops and other places. You keep forgetting that a lot of the strife was due to 3 factions living within the same borders. Since they all hate each other, it's ungovernable. It should have been split like Yugoslavia. It was a bad idea to go in, but once you're in, you can't just pull out randomly.
Sat Nov 04, 2017 4:38 pm
TreePosts: 110Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

Post Re: What to do about North Korea?

Instead, the only way we're going to come to an equitable solution with North Korea is through diplomacy. As I've mentioned several times in this thread, instead of beating our chests at them and shaking trees trying to threaten them (which makes them respond by desperately seeking nukes to stave off the threatened invasion) we need to find ways to incentivize them to accept specific conditions. Similarly, we need the cooperation of China because, without it, North Korea is a) safe from American invasion and b) buffered against international indignation and sanctions.


NK was perfecting its nuclear technology before Trump and has done so for decades. By 2006 they had tested their first nuke. In more recent times they've been trying to fit ICBMs with nukes successfully. The last 3 presidents all tried diplomatic approaches to halt NK's nuclear program. It hasn't worked. They've broken all their promises and continued to work on nuclear technology. Clinton for example struck a deal with NK in 1994 where they would give up their plutonium reactor in exchange for 500k tons of heavy fuel oil and two light-water reactors. (Covertly the enriched uranium instead and cheated on the deal.)

Trump inherited this mess, he did not create it and he sure can't do much to make it any worse by telling it like it is.

It is not true at all that if Trump just toned down his rhetoric, NK wouldn't be doing this.

While I'd like to see this resolved diplomatically, time is running out. What do you propose to do if diplomacy fails again?
Sat Nov 04, 2017 5:02 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1544Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: What to do about North Korea?

Tree wrote:NK was perfecting its nuclear technology before Trump and has done so for decades. By 2006 they had tested their first nuke. In more recent times they've been trying to fit ICBMs with nukes successfully. The last 3 presidents all tried diplomatic approaches to halt NK's nuclear program. It hasn't worked. They've broken all their promises and continued to work on nuclear technology. Clinton for example struck a deal with NK in 1994 where they would give up their plutonium reactor in exchange for 500k tons of heavy fuel oil and two light-water reactors. (Covertly the enriched uranium instead and cheated on the deal.)


Irrelevant. No one is blaming Trump for North Korea's nuclear development.


Tree wrote:Trump inherited this mess, he did not create it and he sure can't do much to make it any worse by telling it like it is.


Trump does not own this mess, he no more inherited it than any other former president aside from far back when the US and Russia were using the Korean peninsula as their proxies. It's not his, and in reality, he's not obliged to do anything at all. Certainly not the freak show he's been displaying for his uncritical fans.

However, he absolutely could make it worse, and it's nonsensical for you to assert otherwise. For example, military action in the Korean peninsula would unquestionably be worse for all parties. He arguably already has made it worse by showing the international community that a crackpot's in charge of the USA and that it can no longer be relied on to be the voice of reason on the world stage.

You might want to pretend it's fake media, but the international news has been reporting all of Trump's ridiculous tweets, and people all over are worried about the damage he's going to cause with his big mouth flapping. You're worried about threats to the USA? Trump's a major threat because he's damaging the US' credibility with its allies and its enemies alike.


Tree wrote:It is not true at all that if Trump just toned down his rhetoric, NK wouldn't be doing this.


Red herring - no one said otherwise. Not one person in this thread has linked North Korea developing nuclear weapons to Trump's rhetoric.

Instead, what has been pointed out is that threatening a nation with complete destruction, talking about fire and fury, is batshit fucking insane and undermines the legitimacy of an international effort to contain North Korea and its program. It's what we expect of the moron in charge of North Korea, not the fucking president of the United States of America - it's one of those ways we tell the good guys from the nutbags. Iran saying something similar to this about Israel a few years back caused widespread consternation and criticism, and that international disapproval is equally being targeted at Trump. More so in fact because Trump and the US are the predominant nuclear power in the world. He needs to be controlled because he surely is not making it better by beating his chest at a fellow egotist.

It's also illogical. We can't claim to be threatened by North Korea's nukes, and in response threaten to destroy North Korea. To use an analogy, it's like sharing a boat with someone and being scared they plan to shoot holes in the bottom, and reacting to that fear by also threatening to shoot holes in the bottom of the boat. It creates a no win scenario - certainly a scenario where everyone else in the boat just wants both twonks to shut the fuck up and stop posturing. We all share this planet, and threatening nuclear warfare is something we've all got vested interest in, so I won't be sitting down and shutting up while 2 narcissistic lunatics drag us to the precipice of obliteration.


Tree wrote:While I'd like to see this resolved diplomatically, time is running out. What do you propose to do if diplomacy fails again?


More diplomacy. That's the nature of diplomacy - it's not about Final Solutions: it's an on-going process that breeds more diplomacy, which breeds more and more, meaning that 2 nations are talking, developing a precedent of talking... and jaw, jaw, jaw is always preferable to war, war, war... never more so than when nuclear weapons are involved.

Any notion of a military campaign in North Korea is insane. First of all, the spectre of the number of bodies being flown home draped in the flag should be more than enough to sideline the fruitcakes calling for war. Secondly, even assuming a military victory regardless of the cost, there's still the problem the USA is facing elsewhere in the world where it's invaded: administrating a hostile population. Trump's isolationist - so how's he going to justify the dramatic expense of maintaining a military presence in North Korea for the foreseeable future? Finally, China. Really, the only word that needs to be said is 'China'. If you think a North Korean belligerent is scary, then you really don't want to be thinking about what happens if you provoke China into active hostility with the United States.

No, there's no way forward here except dialogue, diplomacy, and incentives.
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
กบในกะลาครอบ
Sat Nov 04, 2017 6:06 pm
TreePosts: 110Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

Post Re: What to do about North Korea?

Sparhafoc wrote:Trump does not own this mess, he no more inherited it than any other former president aside from far back when the US and Russia were using the Korean peninsula as their proxies. It's not his, and in reality, he's not obliged to do anything at all.


Anything that's related to the security of the US and its interests abroad is his duty to do something about.

However, he absolutely could make it worse, and it's nonsensical for you to assert otherwise. For example, military action in the Korean peninsula would unquestionably be worse for all parties.


I was talking about his statements.

He arguably already has made it worse by showing the international community that a crackpot's in charge of the USA and that it can no longer be relied on to be the voice of reason on the world stage.


What have these voices of reason done to contain NK?

You might want to pretend it's fake media, but the international news has been reporting all of Trump's ridiculous tweets, and people all over are worried about the damage he's going to cause with his big mouth flapping. You're worried about threats to the USA? Trump's a major threat because he's damaging the US' credibility with its allies and its enemies alike.


It's not the best way to communicate due to the char limit, but too much of a fuss is being made about it. I get the impression it's more to do with the media no longer having the monopoly to report on what the president says as people can just go to Twitter or Facebook or see a YT recording of a speech, more or less unfiltered by media bias or sensationalist headlines.

Instead, what has been pointed out is that threatening a nation with complete destruction, talking about fire and fury, is batshit fucking insane and undermines the legitimacy of an international effort to contain North Korea and its program


Again I have to ask what the international community has achieved so far? By all means if EU or Germany or Britain or whoever think they can step in and do this NK negotiating thing better, do it. Right now it seems like people are just waiting for the US to solve their problem, just like they wait for the US to pay NATO expenses disproportionately.

It's what we expect of the moron in charge of North Korea, not the fucking president of the United States of America - it's one of those ways we tell the good guys from the nutbags. Iran saying something similar to this about Israel a few years back caused widespread consternation and criticism, and that international disapproval is equally being targeted at Trump.


That's because Iran has no valid reason to make such threats towards Israel. Israel's a tiny democracy with more than enough on its plate, who doesn't even share a border with Iran but shares a border with 5 other nations that is it not on good terms with. Iran's just a thug nation who would do well to mind its own business and pray nobody starts commenting on their horrific human rights abuses. While not as bad as NK which is a special snowflake of a nation, their legitimacy is pretty poor.

The idea that there's any valid analogy between Israel-Iran and NK-USA relations is laughable.

It's also illogical. We can't claim to be threatened by North Korea's nukes, and in response threaten to destroy North Korea.


Actually that's not illogical at all. The argument that "no North Korea = no possibility in the future of nuclear ICBMs being fired into US from NK" is a solid and shut case.

No criminal = no crime

So this is a matter of morality and tactics. After all, we destroyed Nazi Germany to remove that threat.

Is it overkill? If there's an alternative that does less damage, yes. It would be preferable to get Kim to step down, or kill him, or get China to annex NK as an autonomous region but without nukes. China protects Kim's regime, but Kim himself controls no nukes.

If NK will pursue nuclear ICBMs regardless of what we say or do, then no, it's not overkill. And I don't literally think a strike should target each area of NK, just the military targets and the major infrastructure that could support a war effort and then followed by periodic calls for surrender.

To use an analogy, it's like sharing a boat with someone and being scared they plan to shoot holes in the bottom, and reacting to that fear by also threatening to shoot holes in the bottom of the boat. It creates a no win scenario


Only we're not in the same boat. US and NATO countries are not even within the range of NK's current technology.

The real problem is that South Korea and Japan are.

So it's more like, we can sink their boat, they can't sink ours, but they can damage our friends' boats. That's pretty bad, but even worse is having the ability to sink EVERY boat in the water, which they will get in a few years.

More diplomacy. That's the nature of diplomacy - it's not about Final Solutions: it's an on-going process that breeds more diplomacy, which breeds more and more, meaning that 2 nations are talking, developing a precedent of talking... and jaw, jaw, jaw is always preferable to war, war, war... never more so than when nuclear weapons are involved.


What could possibly convince Kim to give up nukes+nuclear capable ICBMs once he gets them? Don't think now, think 2020+. By then he will have perfected the technology.

Do you think it's possible that maybe some regimes can't be negotiated with? Chamberlain said there was going to be peace in our time, there wasn't. And Kim's dad violated a deal before and still pursued nukes covertly.


Any notion of a military campaign in North Korea is insane. First of all, the spectre of the number of bodies being flown home draped in the flag should be more than enough to sideline the fruitcakes calling for war. Secondly, even assuming a military victory regardless of the cost, there's still the problem the USA is facing elsewhere in the world where it's invaded: administrating a hostile population.


Again, it's not universally true that hasn't worked. Remember, we pacified Japan and Japan is now one of the best countries to live in. We destroyed the Nazi German regime, but Germany recovered.

And we don't need to be in the region for long because South Korea can annex North Korea and govern it instead. Why does this point never get discussed?

Trump's isolationist - so how's he going to justify the dramatic expense of maintaining a military presence in North Korea for the foreseeable future? Finally, China. Really, the only word that needs to be said is 'China'. If you think a North Korean belligerent is scary, then you really don't want to be thinking about what happens if you provoke China into active hostility with the United States.

No, there's no way forward here except dialogue, diplomacy, and incentives.


China doesn't want a conflict with the US anymore than the US wants a conflict with China. It's a fucked up regime, but they're not crazy Kim level. I call it a bluff.

I don't believe they would interfere. NK is simply not worth it.

If they're truly worried, they just should annex NK now before we get to it. If that involves Kim losing his toys and being kept in line, I'm fine with it. Everyone should be happy then, Kim can continue being a dick in his autonomous region of China with no possibility of US overthrowing him (since that would involved invading Chinese territory) and US doesn't have to worry about Kim nukes. China will control those nukes instead and while it is run by scumbags they're far more rational actors than Kim.
Sat Nov 04, 2017 8:27 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1544Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: What to do about North Korea?

Tree wrote:Anything that's related to the security of the US and its interests abroad is his duty to do something about.


That's hawkish neoconservatism. Given Trump's disdain for his international obligations, it's ironic that he's pushing for war and his followers are banging the drum.

What his duty is on the international stage is to work with the USA's allies, to speak softly and carry a big stick. It's not his duty to use Twitter to push for a nuclear military exchange.


Tree wrote:I was talking about his statements.


His statements have made it worse, if for no other reason than he's shown the international community that he's an untrustworthy loose cannon who blusters and beats his chest rather than taking the threat seriously.


Tree wrote:
He arguably already has made it worse by showing the international community that a crackpot's in charge of the USA and that it can no longer be relied on to be the voice of reason on the world stage.


What have these voices of reason done to contain NK?


Well, let's enumerate. 1) There's been no war between North Korea and everyone else. 2) No one's fired nuclear missiles at each other.

So let's say there's only those two - those two alone are sufficient to explain what the voices of reason have done.


Tree wrote:It's not the best way to communicate due to the char limit, but too much of a fuss is being made about it.


No, that's a poor excuse for a ridiculous scenario. There's no character limit for Trump as he simply runs over to the next tweet. When the president of the USA uses his twitter account to call for war and to engage in bluster and chest-beating with a nuclear-armed power, then not enough fuss is being made about it. He needs his daycare staff to work extra hard ensuring he's not flippantly damaging the USA and its interests.


Tree wrote: I get the impression it's more to do with the media no longer having the monopoly to report on what the president says as people can just go to Twitter or Facebook or see a YT recording of a speech, more or less unfiltered by media bias or sensationalist headlines.


And that's a very typical Trumpite retort which has little to do with reality, and serves more as cognitive bias filter. The highest officials in our land should be held to the highest standards, and the press has a vital role in ensuring that the general populace of the country have a way of evaluating their leaders activities.

In this regard, Trump has done untold damage to the US already by undermining the free press, pretending that any criticism of him is 'fake news', and mistakenly citing Fox News opinion pieces as fact.


Tree wrote:Again I have to ask what the international community has achieved so far?


What they've achieved so far is absolutely fucking obvious - no nuclear conflict with North Korea. Considering you are supposedly concerned about North Korea striking at US interests, the fact that this hasn't happened should be considered by you as sufficient achievement.


Tree wrote:By all means if EU or Germany or Britain or whoever think they can step in and do this NK negotiating thing better, do it. Right now it seems like people are just waiting for the US to solve their problem,....


No one is 'waiting' for anything because, aside from the standard bluster and provocation, North Korea's business as usual. What you can see is that the international community is prepared to respond to provocation with sanctions

The belief that there is something to be done, and that someone needs to do it is your argument, your position here, and it's not shared by most people. If the USA attacks North Korea, it will be unilaterally, and they will be seen as the aggressor.


Tree wrote:just like they wait for the US to pay NATO expenses disproportionately


A Trumpist falsehood stated as fact.

If you know how NATO works, you wouldn't be touting this bullshit. Contributions to NATO are based on GNI/GDP. The USA's population is vastly larger than, say, the UK's, and consequently the USA pays more in total. If China were part of NATO, they'd be expected to pay nearly the same as the USA.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm

Direct contributions are made to finance requirements of the Alliance that serve the interests of all 29 members - and are not the responsibility of any single member - such as NATO-wide air defence or command and control systems. Costs are borne collectively, often using the principle of common funding.

Within the principle of common funding, all 29 members contribute according to an agreed cost-share formula, based on Gross National Income, which represents a small percentage of each member’s defence budget.


In reality, all NATO member states are fully paid up in accordance with the agreements made decades ago.

This is yet another form of international provocation by Trump, and it is another way in which Trump has already wrought damage to the USA and its standing in the world. He might be able to lie to an undereducated public back home, but when his lies are about his international allies, they rightly feel he's untrustworthy.

Further, there's another irony here. In a thread handwringing about what to do about a foreign national actor, about the spectre of war, you join in the chorus of nonsense attacking the few allies the USA can assuredly count on.

You've elected a moron to the highest office in the nation, and you are reaping the rewards of that.


Tree wrote:That's because Iran has no valid reason to make such threats towards Israel.


And you're doing it again.

Listen chap, this is a rule I would have thought it difficult to leave childhood without knowing: what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. There is not one rule for you, and one rule for others.

It's frankly bizarre and nonsensical that you hold foreign nations, ones which you see as enemies, to higher standards than you hold your own nation.

Let me spell it out for you: no nation has a 'valid reason' to call for the destruction of another nation.

That includes the USA. But when the USA starts acting like that, its status in the world is diminished, it loses legitimacy and authority, and its allies look on in horror.


Tree wrote: Israel's a tiny democracy with more than enough on its plate, who doesn't even share a border with Iran but shares a border with 5 other nations that is it not on good terms with.


Israel's a manufactured nation, imposed on a populace subjugated during colonialism, with a jingoistic administration who also possesses nuclear weapons, but doesn't sign a nuclear non-proliferation treaty, doesn't have inspections about their usage of nuclear material, and who has repeatedly engaged in human rights abuses of the people in the region. It is propped up by actors like the USA and the UK, and that fact together with the way Israel behaves breeds hatred.

And yeah, it's another very good example of why states like North Korea have nukes. When we allow nuclear weapons to proliferate to nations just because we like them, then we've undermined the entire notion of non-proliferation. We've slipped off the mound of moral high ground.


Tree wrote:Iran's just a thug nation who would do well to mind its own business and pray nobody starts commenting on their horrific human rights abuses. While not as bad as NK which is a special snowflake of a nation, their legitimacy is pretty poor.


Yup, another nation who is targeted by the USA as a boogeyman with repeated threats and hostility. Ironically, the Islamic Republic was actually created by the USA and its allies - one of those oh-so-clever tinkerings with the Middle East that has bred such generational horror.

Even more ironically, the USA and its allies actually managed to get Iran to do what they want, to come to an agreement not to develop nuclear weapons, and the first thing Trump and his ilk have done is try to pretend that the deal is bad... to what end? To justify military conflict in Iran? To encourage Iran to get nukes when the agreement is broken?

Considering all the hand-wringing about North Korea, it's very hard to see how the manufactured fear about that is consistent with Trump undermining the nuclear stability of the Middle East by haranguing Iran.



Tree wrote:The idea that there's any valid analogy between Israel-Iran and NK-USA relations is laughable.


Says you but then your arguments are all special pleading.



Tree wrote:
It's also illogical. We can't claim to be threatened by North Korea's nukes, and in response threaten to destroy North Korea.


Actually that's not illogical at all. The argument that "no North Korea = no possibility in the future of nuclear ICBMs being fired into US from NK" is a solid and shut case.


As I've already educated you several times, that makes you the aggressor, and it makes you at least as bad morally as those you are trying to demonize, and it makes you a threat to everyone.

Of course, although you don't comprehend this due to the special pleading goggles you wear when looking at the USA, I've already pointed out that any such flimsy justification is just as applicable for nations like North Korea.

If jingoists like you are correct, and the best way to protect the USA and its citizens is the destruction of North Korea, then naturally the exact same argument operates for North Korea, and the best way for them to protect their interests would be to cripple the USA. This is essentially what you're charging North Korea with - they're terrible because they would strike us.... as if that then means you can behave in the same way and yet maintain the moral high ground.

You should be careful of what you wish for... or more accurately, you should think before banging a drum for war.


Tree wrote:No criminal = no crime


No crime = no crime.

"Arresting" someone who hasn't committed a crime is just tyranny.

Of course, such analogies are prone to fudging, so let's make it clear. If North Korea invades or attacks another nation, then it is our moral duty (the international community) to defeat that aggression. But if they don't invade or attack another nation and we instead invade and attack them based on some prevarication then it is just tyranny.


Tree wrote:So this is a matter of morality and tactics. After all, we destroyed Nazi Germany to remove that threat.


How many nuclear bombs did you use on Nazi Germany?

It's fascinating watching you typing from both corners of your mouth.

Also, just a quick note about history, Nazi Germany actually invaded and annexed other countries - it's what made them the bad guys. That justification doesn't work for North Korea who hasn't actually invaded anyone at any point of its existence.

You're going to need another lie to bang the war drums.


Tree wrote:Is it overkill? If there's an alternative that does less damage, yes. It would be preferable to get Kim to step down, or kill him, or get China to annex NK as an autonomous region but without nukes. China protects Kim's regime, but Kim himself controls no nukes.


For the most part, China's perfectly happy with the situation as is. They certainly don't want the USA to have political and military sway over the entire peninsula right on their doorstep.


Tree wrote:If NK will pursue nuclear ICBMs regardless of what we say or do, then no, it's not overkill.


If you and your jingoistic ilk keep threatening nations with military action, then an imperative is created to possess nuclear weapons. Everyone can look and see what happened to Iraq and Afghanistan. That wouldn't have happened if they possessed nukes.

Sadly, there's one clear aggressor here, and it's not those funny hostile foreign regimes. It's on our own doorstep, and it's breeding hatred and contempt for us, making us less safe, and the world more volatile.


Tree wrote: And I don't literally think a strike should target each area of NK, just the military targets and the major infrastructure that could support a war effort and then followed by periodic calls for surrender.


Be sure to pass on your advice to the US high command.

Incidentally, you'll also want to explain to South Korea how you'll use their nation as a staging platform to attack their nuclear armed neighbour. I am sure that's going to go down a treat.


Tree wrote:Only we're not in the same boat. US and NATO countries are not even within the range of NK's current technology.


Sadly, we are. The boat is the world on which we all live, and nuclear weapons put a serious hole in it for all of us.

I've explained to you several times that you misunderstand the nature of nuclear warfare. It is not like other weapons just bigger, it has a long term effect that can keep harming and killing people for generations.


Tree wrote:The real problem is that South Korea and Japan are.


And we will be there to protect them. The entire international community will be there to protect them.

But pull the pre-emptive non-aggression shit again, and you become the enemy of world peace.

What do you imagine happens if we start bombing North Korea and they can't strike the US mainland?


Tree wrote:So it's more like, we can sink their boat, they can't sink ours, but they can damage our friends' boats. That's pretty bad, but even worse is having the ability to sink EVERY boat in the water, which they will get in a few years.


It's crystal clear that you do not understand the ramifications of nuclear warfare. There's only one boat - the only one we've got for the foreseeable future.


Tree wrote:What could possibly convince Kim to give up nukes+nuclear capable ICBMs once he gets them? Don't think now, think 2020+. By then he will have perfected the technology.


Given the fact that you've justified the USA possessing them, then the question should be rephrased. What would possibly convince the USA to give up its nukes?

Whatever answer you give that refuses to give up nukes is the answer everyone else will give. That's the nature of the beast.

With the USA yammering for war, North Korea knows perfectly well that the only defense it has is nuclear weaponry, so of course, it's going to work hard to modernize and develop its capacity.

How can we reverse this course? I don't know - it's very hard to envision a world without nukes when the nuclear-armed nations refuse to give them up and allow their friend nations to possess them.



Tree wrote:Do you think it's possible that maybe some regimes can't be negotiated with? Chamberlain said there was going to be peace in our time, there wasn't. And Kim's dad violated a deal before and still pursued nukes covertly.



All regimes can be negotiated with - talking isn't hard, but dropping nuclear bombs on people should be a damn sight harder.

You've appealed to Chamberlain twice, but it's ironic for a number of reasons, not least because he's had some urban myth constructed about him in the USA, but also because you are using his name as an analogy about appeasing a belligerent nation that's invading and annexing sovereign states, but you are using that metaphor in an argument where you seek to justify the USA invading and annexing sovereign states. :?

To me, you and yours make the USA less safe, and the rest of the world even less safe. I don't want North Korea to have nukes, but I also don't want the USA wandering about invading nations ever decade.


Tree wrote:Again, it's not universally true that hasn't worked. Remember, we pacified Japan and Japan is now one of the best countries to live in. We destroyed the Nazi German regime, but Germany recovered.


Tell me how it's going in Afghanistan?

Remember how you said that Islamic State were worse morally than North Korea? The USA's invasion of Iraq led to a power vacuum that allowed the rise of IS. You would think after such disastrous consequences that the populace of the US would be a little more reticent about throwing their children's lives away in conflicts overseas on tenuous grounds. Invading forces are always going to take a toll.


Tree wrote:And we don't need to be in the region for long because South Korea can annex North Korea and govern it instead. Why does this point never get discussed?


Fantasy. South Korea's not going to pick up your butcher's bill.


Tree wrote:China doesn't want a conflict with the US anymore than the US wants a conflict with China.


Of course it doesn't, but if China started invading and attacking South/Central American regimes, the USA is hardly going to sit there watching it under the assumption of China's good intentions.


Tree wrote:It's a fucked up regime, but they're not crazy Kim level. I call it a bluff.


Calling it a bluff is like playing chicken with a semi driving at you at 100 miles an hour. Just make sure you put yourself in harm's way rather than chucking everyone else in front of the truck.


Tree wrote:I don't believe they would interfere. NK is simply not worth it.


Utterly stupid. You think they're going to allow the USA to do to their client neighbour what the USA did to Afghanistan and Iraq? I'd insert a laughing emoticon, but this is so clearly madness, that even ironic levity isn't appropriate.

Really, think about this for a moment. China is flexing its regional power, establishing military bases throughout the South China sea and being criticized for it by the USA. So you think they're going to let the USA expand its sphere of influence right up to their northern borders?

Honestly, a lot of these errors in your thinking would be resolved by the application of empathy. Imagine yourself in their shoes and see it from their eyes.


Tree wrote:If they're truly worried, they just should annex NK now before we get to it.


Why would they do that? 1) China usually doesn't go for the annex route - it prefers to cause regimes to be financially tied to China. 2) North Korea is a buffer between China and the American supported South Korea. 3) It's a card in their hand - when they want to virtue signal, they can publicly criticize NK, or they can provide support via silence whenever they want to counter American influence in the region.

Let's be clear: nations that go round annexing other nations are not the good guys, and China at least understands that public perception is actually very important to get things done.


Tree wrote:If that involves Kim losing his toys and being kept in line, I'm fine with it. Everyone should be happy then, Kim can continue being a dick in his autonomous region of China with no possibility of US overthrowing him (since that would involved invading Chinese territory) and US doesn't have to worry about Kim nukes. China will control those nukes instead and while it is run by scumbags they're far more rational actors than Kim.


That's not going to happen for the foreseeable future. China's perfectly content to keep North Korea exactly where it is, but ironically, it's actually China who is the real force for keeping North Korea from firing off nukes because China would have to step in to ensure that it maintained its sphere of influence.

China wants the USA to be in control of North Korea about as much as the USA wants China to be in control of Mexico.
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
กบในกะลาครอบ
Sun Nov 05, 2017 2:55 am
TreePosts: 110Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

Post Re: What to do about North Korea?

Sparhafoc wrote:That's hawkish neoconservatism. Given Trump's disdain for his international obligations, it's ironic that he's pushing for war and his followers are banging the drum.

What his duty is on the international stage is to work with the USA's allies, to speak softly and carry a big stick. It's not his duty to use Twitter to push for a nuclear military exchange.


I think the problem is we don't agree on what constitutes aggression.

I don't think you need to physically attack someone for your actions to constitute aggression. There are ways to be an aggressor without striking first. Now if I knew my neighbor was stockpiling and experimenting with volatile chemicals that could level the neighborhood if mishandled for even 1 second, even if there's no malice involved, I'd have a word to say about that. I'm not much of a fan of government regulation, but there should be a limit to how much risk you can put people at without their consent. Take those damn chemicals outside our reach, residential areas are not industrial playgrounds and similarly we don't need to be in range of a psychotic regime's nuclear weapons.

His statements have made it worse, if for no other reason than he's shown the international community that he's an untrustworthy loose cannon who blusters and beats his chest rather than taking the threat seriously.


Have they? At least they've made it clear to Kim that there's a limit.


Well, let's enumerate. 1) There's been no war between North Korea and everyone else. 2) No one's fired nuclear missiles at each other.

So let's say there's only those two - those two alone are sufficient to explain what the voices of reason have done.


Okay, neither of those is attributable to international effort. NK is too weak to wage war on everyone and can't attack SK because of US troops stationed there for decades. They can't rely on nuclear weapons because their nuclear capabilities are pretty poor compared to other nuclear armed nations.

Also I was talking about something else. Kim still has nukes and pursuing greater nuclear warfare capability. International effort hasn't stopped that and they didn't even respect Clinton's deal.



And that's a very typical Trumpite retort which has little to do with reality, and serves more as cognitive bias filter. The highest officials in our land should be held to the highest standards, and the press has a vital role in ensuring that the general populace of the country have a way of evaluating their leaders activities.


If only the mainstream media wasn't partisan. They were far more indulgent with Obama.

In this regard, Trump has done untold damage to the US already by undermining the free press, pretending that any criticism of him is 'fake news', and mistakenly citing Fox News opinion pieces as fact.


The free press is protected by the 1st amendment. Trump can't stop them, he can only criticize them back. And even if he goes the slander/libel route, it's very difficult to prove in court.

What they've achieved so far is absolutely fucking obvious - no nuclear conflict with North Korea. Considering you are supposedly concerned about North Korea striking at US interests, the fact that this hasn't happened should be considered by you as sufficient achievement.


Once again, this is more to do with NK's inability to strike rather than Germany or whoever calming it down. Let's try to keep it that way.

No one is 'waiting' for anything because, aside from the standard bluster and provocation, North Korea's business as usual. What you can see is that the international community is prepared to respond to provocation with sanctions


There have been decades of sanctions upon sanctions upon sanctions. Every time they do a rocket test or a nuclear test, there's more sanctions with no result in deterring the next test. Does the Kim family care? Not really since they can just pass the costs on to the poorest of the population and the people as a whole are too broken to resist meaningfully. They have no weapons and they don't even have the strength to fight given how poorly fed they are their entire lives.


The belief that there is something to be done, and that someone needs to do it is your argument, your position here, and it's not shared by most people. If the USA attacks North Korea, it will be unilaterally, and they will be seen as the aggressor.


Yeah, I think they'll get over it, at least the people in the free world will who know what a sick puppy NK is.

And NK could easily prevent a US respone by: 1. giving up its military nuclear program 2. recognizing SK's right to exist


A Trumpist falsehood stated as fact.


I meant that NATO nations are required to spend at least 2% of GDP on military.

Many nations do not do that and some nations have only pledged to do that after Trump put pressure on them.

This means that in the event of a conflict, they would be a liability that has to be carried.

Further, there's another irony here. In a thread handwringing about what to do about a foreign national actor, about the spectre of war, you join in the chorus of nonsense attacking the few allies the USA can assuredly count on.


No offense but European nations need America for defense far more than the reverse.

And you're doing it again.

Listen chap, this is a rule I would have thought it difficult to leave childhood without knowing: what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. There is not one rule for you, and one rule for others.


You're right, rules are for everyone so when and if Iran starts playing by the rules that it agreed to when it joined the UN (one of the basic ones being that you can't be a tyrant, you need to respect the rights of your people), then you can claim we're having a double standard for Iran. The idea that tyrannies will get the exact same status, the exact same respect as democracies is LUDICROUS. No, they'll only be tolerated in so far as they don't fuck with our interests and our allies. They lost the right complain long ago. If they want equal status on the world stage they need to start acting more humanely. We don't expect perfection but they're not even making an effort.

Furthermore, you still need to explain what Iran has to fear from Israel. The idea that a tiny nation surrounded by 5 other hostile nations will somehow pose a threat to Iran without provocation is insane. Israel is not North Korea. It's a democracy and it just wants to be left alone.

It's frankly bizarre and nonsensical that you hold foreign nations, ones which you see as enemies, to higher standards than you hold your own nation.


I'm only holding them to the standard that they agreed when they joined the UN. I'm not asking for perfection, but if you're going to disregard even the status of your own people and fuck with our allies to boot, why the hell should we respect you? You can't claim the protection of international law when you don't respect it yourself. International law doesn't work unless both sides respect it. It's not a shield for rogue nations to fuck around unopposed.

When have you ever seen 2 functional democracies go to war for example? Why doesn't the evil US attack Britain? Why doesn't it attack Germany? Why doesn't it attack Australia or Canada or Serbia or Hungary? Every single war has always involved at least one despot.

Let me spell it out for you: no nation has a 'valid reason' to call for the destruction of another nation.


Not if that nation poses a threat.

That includes the USA. But when the USA starts acting like that, its status in the world is diminished, it loses legitimacy and authority, and its allies look on in horror.


Again, I don't understand why a tyrannical regime needs to be given the exact same status as a democracy.

I'm only prepared to leave them alone in so far as they stay out of my way. If they start fucking with our allies, it's on. We don't need to put up with rogue nations any more than we need to put up with criminals roaming the land free. You want international law to work? Start by making sure nations abide by the human rights they claim to have signed up for.

Israel's a manufactured nation, imposed on a populace subjugated during colonialism,


This is ridiculous. What the hell do you mean by manufactured nation? Every nation is manufactured. Either people:

1. move into barren lands and create settlements and a form of government to regulate the affairs of those people
2. conquer other nations forming a new nation, even if this is the case, and it isn't with modern Israel, we still recognize their right to exist as long as enough lifetimes have passed like a sort of statute of limitations
3. form a new nation from the ashes of a defunct nation, such as a broken empire, in this case the Ottoman Empire <- this is Israel's situation

After the Ottoman Empire fell, you had a whole landmass full of different people to deal with and borders had to be redrawn unless you preferred anarchy I guess. Israel was one of them as a homeland for the Jews. Jews have always lived in the region, even had their own state before several different empires took over. Their claim is pretty solid, about as solid as other nations can get. Its neighbors need to get over it and stop trying to destroy it or complain when Israel strikes back to defend itself. They can't have it all.

with a jingoistic administration who also possesses nuclear weapons, but doesn't sign a nuclear non-proliferation treaty, doesn't have inspections about their usage of nuclear material,


Israel isn't North Korea. They're not going to nuke anyone as long as nobody is trying to invade them. That's just their insurance policy so we don't get another war where 5 hostile nations try to attack Israel at once and make the state cease to exist.

and who has repeatedly engaged in human rights abuses of the people in the region. It is propped up by actors like the USA and the UK, and that fact together with the way Israel behaves breeds hatred.


The way Palestinians and their other neighbors behave breeds Israeli hatred so I guess the feeling is mutual. Remember they tried to destroy Israel on day ONE of its creation. You can't get more hateful than that. Regarding human rights, Israel has the best record in the region and most of the problems come due to war. There's no other way for Israel to defend itself if it can't retaliate. So if Israel doesn't deserve to exist because of its human rights record, then neither do any of its neighbors, don't even go there because that's not an argument you can win.

And yeah, it's another very good example of why states like North Korea have nukes. When we allow nuclear weapons to proliferate to nations just because we like them, then we've undermined the entire notion of non-proliferation. We've slipped off the mound of moral high ground.


Yeah except Israel is actually a responsible actor who minds its tiny business, unlike the unhinged NK regime.

And you still haven't explained how this affects Iran which isn't even an Israeli neighbor. Truth is, Iran is the aggressor due to funding Hezbollah to fuck with Israel and that fucks with Lebanon too which used to be more peaceful.

Yup, another nation who is targeted by the USA as a boogeyman with repeated threats and hostility. Ironically, the Islamic Republic was actually created by the USA and its allies - one of those oh-so-clever tinkerings with the Middle East that has bred such generational horror.


No, Iran's regime was created by Iranians. This idea that Iran has no agency or responsibility for its actions just because the US does X is silly.

Did the US contribute to the problem? Yes. Is Iran a saint? No. Did the US create the concept of an "Islamic Republic"? No. The idea of an Islamic law that governs society is almost as old as Islam. There will always be factions in the Islamic world that want society to be governed that way.

Maybe they shouldn't have overthrown Mohammad Mosaddegh, but then again Mosaddegh nationalized a British oil company, so he was no saint, that's an act of aggression against a British company.

Even more ironically, the USA and its allies actually managed to get Iran to do what they want, to come to an agreement not to develop nuclear weapons, and the first thing Trump and his ilk have done is try to pretend that the deal is bad... to what end? To justify military conflict in Iran? To encourage Iran to get nukes when the agreement is broken?


Trump has kept the deal for now, but you can't have not noticed that the deal has major flaws. Maybe you should be blaming the previous president for not getting a better deal.

Consider the fact that the deal unfreezes billions of dollars in assets and that provides a major boost to the regime's hold on power, which was declining, and the ability to fund subversive groups like Hezbollah.

Iran can also potentially delay inspections for up to 24 days if it wants to, which is more than enough time to conceal evidence of covert nuclear operations.

The deal doesn't stop them from developing ICBMs.

Some of the requirements of the deal are only available for a limited time.

Reduction in the number of installed centrifuges from 19,000 to 6,104 and only 5,060 of these enriching uranium for 10 years.

Reduce stockpile of enriched uranium from current 10,000 to not more than 300 kilograms 3.67 percent enrich uranium for 15 years.



Considering all the hand-wringing about North Korea, it's very hard to see how the manufactured fear about that is consistent with Trump undermining the nuclear stability of the Middle East by haranguing Iran.


Trump hasn't cancelled the deal yet and he's not going to do anything without his advisors giving the green light.

That said, it is a pretty shitty deal. Are we stuck with it? I dunno. It needs to be renegotiated at least.

Says you but then your arguments are all special pleading.


Not special pleading, just the facts. And it's also not special pleading to make a distinction between a democracy and a tyrant.

Israel is not the aggressor to Iran, Israel wouldn't give two shits about Iran if left alone, while NK is the aggressor to both US and SK.



As I've already educated you several times, that makes you the aggressor, and it makes you at least as bad morally as those you are trying to demonize, and it makes you a threat to everyone.


Listen, if my neighbor was playing with dangerous chemicals, a SWAT team would burst in and haul his ass to jail, EVEN if there's no malice involved and nobody died or got injured.

Putting people at great risk without their consent is also an act of aggression. The idea that we need to tolerate it until someone actually dies or gets injured and it's too late is stupid.

Of course, although you don't comprehend this due to the special pleading goggles you wear when looking at the USA, I've already pointed out that any such flimsy justification is just as applicable for nations like North Korea.


It's not special pleading to notice that NK doesn't have the basic check and balances to be trusted with weapons as dangerous as nukes.

We have removed people from civilized society for far less, even when nobody got hurt and if we don't allow people to tinker with certain chemicals in their backyard and risk creating an explosion, why the hell do we allow a malicious mad man who holds millions of hostages and de facto slaves the capacity to end the world?



If jingoists like you are correct, and the best way to protect the USA and its citizens is the destruction of North Korea, then naturally the exact same argument operates for North Korea, and the best way for them to protect their interests would be to cripple the USA.


"They", the people of NK, aren't in charge of their country to begin with which make the entire post nonsensical. The comparison is absolutely flawed. The US has no interest in NK other seeing Kim and all his cronies disarmed of nukes and unable to fuck with SK.

Kim's best course of action to stay in power would be two fold:

1. abandon nukes
2. recognize SK's right to exist

This is essentially what you're charging North Korea with - they're terrible because they would strike us.... as if that then means you can behave in the same way and yet maintain the moral high ground.


Except we do. We have a democracy. People don't come to power by force, but by elections and they have to respect the rights of the people so even then they can't do everything they want.

You are very confused morally. If someone attacks me or my friends or my property, then their destruction is not murder, it's an act of self-defense. That applies to countries too.


"Arresting" someone who hasn't committed a crime is just tyranny.


How about just possession of explosive or dangerous chemicals (non-terrorist for research use included)? Should we get rid of them now or wait until they cause a major accident?

Why is putting people at risk without their consent considered not an aggression to you? Don't you think certain chemicals should either not be available to most people or only available if they follow certain strict rules so that mishandling those chemicals doesn't lead to random people losing their lives?

"Of course, such analogies are prone to fudging, so let's make it clear. If North Korea invades or attacks another nation, then it is our moral duty (the international community) to defeat that aggression. But if they don't invade or attack another nation and we instead invade and attack them based on some prevarication then it is just tyranny.


So are you fine with regular civilians owning explosive/dangerous chemicals and being able to experiment with them anywhere as long as nobody gets hurt? Do we also need to wait for something bad to happen until we do soemthing about it?


How many nuclear bombs did you use on Nazi Germany?


We didn't need to, we just leveled their infrastructure with conventional weapons that shouldn't be underestimated just because they're not nuclear weapons.

Also, just a quick note about history, Nazi Germany actually invaded and annexed other countries - it's what made them the bad guys. That justification doesn't work for North Korea who hasn't actually invaded anyone at any point of its existence.


Dude, the entire creation of NK is an act of aggression against the Koean people. It was created by a small band of Korean communist totalitarians aided by the Soviets and Chinese communists, it has subjected half of the Korean people to a life of total misery, it has even ripped families apart, now split by that DMZ.

Furthermore, NK has been involed in international kidnappings of SKs and Japanese and much of this was done through crossing the border illegally to do the kidnapping. Technically, that is an act of war.

If you and your jingoistic ilk keep threatening nations with military action, then an imperative is created to possess nuclear weapons. Everyone can look and see what happened to Iraq and Afghanistan. That wouldn't have happened if they possessed nukes.


Yes, I'm so sad the bad guys don't have the guns to run amok unopposed.

Iraq might have been a mistake, but equally it was a mistake to leave early. Once you're in, you need to finish the job. Iraq was getting more stable until we pulled out, then all hell broke loose again. Saddam wasn't a saint either, he did invade Kuwait a decade before and was barely kept in check with sanctions.

Afghanistan on the other hand deserved it because they harbored Bin Laden.

Sadly, there's one clear aggressor here, and it's not those funny hostile foreign regimes. It's on our own doorstep, and it's breeding hatred and contempt for us, making us less safe, and the world more volatile.


There was a time when the US left the world to its own devices and was far less interventionist and these "voices of reason" managed to start two world wars and give rise to communism after that.

The US is a more stabilizing factor than you might think.

Honestly, a lot of these errors in your thinking would be resolved by the application of empathy. Imagine yourself in their shoes and see it from their eyes.


I hope not. North Korea is such a dull and totalitarian place that if I was teleported there this moment and put into the shoes of a NK citizen, knowing what I know and given my former lifestyle, I'd just find the least painful way to commit suicide (and that's coming from someone who isn't suicidal). I can't imagine myself adapting to such a lifestyle and constantly looking over my shoulder about what crazy Kim might do. It's such a crazy country that you can literally do everything you're told and still not get enough food to survive and you can still be sent to prison for something someone else did in your family that you didn't even know about.

But as I said, NKs aren't in control of their destiny.

I could maybe see myself adapting to Iran which isn't as crazy and so far removed from a normal life experience, but even then, I'd put the blame on the Iranian government. I would actually hope someone overthrows it so maybe something more humane can take its place. There are many Iranians who do not in fact support their government and probably secretly wished someone would do something about it.
Sun Nov 05, 2017 2:01 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1544Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: What to do about North Korea?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41882272

US President Donald Trump has said Japan could shoot North Korean missiles "out of the sky" with military equipment bought from the US.


Cha-ching!

You missed that option in your list, Tree:

6. Profit
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
กบในกะลาครอบ
Mon Nov 06, 2017 10:13 am
AkamiaUser avatarPosts: 87Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 11:41 pmLocation: Alaska Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: What to do about North Korea?

Sparhafoc wrote:http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41882272

US President Donald Trump has said Japan could shoot North Korean missiles "out of the sky" with military equipment bought from the US.


Cha-ching!

You missed that option in your list, Tree:

6. Profit

Indeed, I had wondered if we had invented anti-missile systems yet. For some time, I had believed it was mere science fiction; you see such things in the likes of BattleTech, Supreme Commander, and even StarCraft, at least StarCraft II anyway. Only one of those has anything to do with anti-nuke missiles, though.

I hope that is enough to negate the threat of a nuclear missile landing in my backyard. I would rather not see nuclear missiles used at all.
The very thing that gives us humans our advanced cognitive abilities can also be our greatest weakness.
Mon Nov 06, 2017 10:20 am
VisakiUser avatarPosts: 776Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:26 pmLocation: Helsinki, Finland Gender: Male

Post Re: What to do about North Korea?

Sparhafoc wrote:http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41882272

US President Donald Trump has said Japan could shoot North Korean missiles "out of the sky" with military equipment bought from the US.


Cha-ching!

You missed that option in your list, Tree:

6. Profit

Yeah... I believe Trumps statements about as far as I can throw them. Which is not at all since they are digital.

But a good missile defense system would actually really only help Japan, South Korea would still be pretty fudged. You can ram a plane with a nuke to Soul from NK in a few minutes, or you can use a cruise missile. Not to mention if they've had the idea of actually smuggling a nuke to Soul or Tokio in advance, an idea I wouldn't put beyond them (though that would be so blatant of a cassus belli that just couldn't be ignored). Sure those can be stopped, but not 100% by even the most optimistic estemates and a war with the NK still has a horrendeus risk to SK even if the US will give them good anti-missile tech.

So yeah, the nukes are actually something that keeps the military option pretty much out of the table. Unless you want to risk hundreds of thousands of casulties when the NK leadership decides to use their use-or-loose weapons. So what other options do we have?
Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:13 am
SparhafocPosts: 1544Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: What to do about North Korea?

Akamia wrote:Indeed, I had wondered if we had invented anti-missile systems yet. For some time, I had believed it was mere science fiction; you see such things in the likes of BattleTech, Supreme Commander, and even StarCraft, at least StarCraft II anyway. Only one of those has anything to do with anti-nuke missiles, though.

I hope that is enough to negate the threat of a nuclear missile landing in my backyard. I would rather not see nuclear missiles used at all.



Quite. The problem with anti-missile devices and nukes is that you don't want nukes to explode anywhere, and while it is unquestionably preferable they explode in the atmosphere rather than amidst a city, the long term damage is unpredictable.

Regardless, it's quite a racket.
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
กบในกะลาครอบ
Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:46 pm
VisakiUser avatarPosts: 776Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:26 pmLocation: Helsinki, Finland Gender: Male

Post Re: What to do about North Korea?

Sparhafoc wrote:Quite. The problem with anti-missile devices and nukes is that you don't want nukes to explode anywhere, and while it is unquestionably preferable they explode in the atmosphere rather than amidst a city, the long term damage is unpredictable.

Regardless, it's quite a racket.

I would think that hitting a nuke with an anti-missile ordinance wouldn't make it go nuclear. Those things are very, very complex and if you blow something up near them it's just spread radioactive stuff all over, not make it go boom. But yeah, I'd rather have 20 kg of plutonium rain down on a city than a 100kT (or worse) boom on that same city.
Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:40 pm
TreePosts: 110Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

Post Re: What to do about North Korea?

SK is in danger regardless.

But it will be far worse for them if Kim can strike the US. At that point, they can just threaten the US to not intervene to save SK. And the Kims are not to be trusted, they wanted SK since the Korea war. Reunification under their dictatorship is still their goal.

Now I don't know about Trump, he has his advisors, but between having the reputation of someone who (re)started a bloody war with NK and got rid of Kim, and having the reputation of a coward who lost South Korea to the worst tyrant to ever live and let him amass an arsenal that can wipe out the world - Well, guess which is worse.
Mon Nov 06, 2017 2:06 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1544Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: What to do about North Korea?

Bone spurs.

It's amazing how quickly the narrative's evolving.
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
กบในกะลาครอบ
Mon Nov 06, 2017 2:20 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1544Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: What to do about North Korea?

Also, let's see how well a counter-narrative goes down.

Now I don't know about Trump, he has his daycare staff, but between having the reputation of someone who acted in America and the world's best interests, and having the reputation of a narcissistic moron who provoked an escalating nuclear conflict in Asia - Well, guess which is worse.


/cue charges of sedition?
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
กบในกะลาครอบ
Mon Nov 06, 2017 2:26 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1544Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: What to do about North Korea?

https://mic.com/articles/181732/south-k ... .vUfAcGWyJ

Im So-jeong wrote:If South and North Korea are going to have a war, it’s going to be all because of Trump.


Now, now South Korean lady, get with the program! Trump's here to save you from war by going to war. You know - there's this threat, the potential of North Korea attacking you because, as we all know, that's what bad people do. So what we're going to do is ensure that threat occurs by attacking North Korea, because that's what good people do. It makes sense just so long as you give it not a moment's thought. Thinking about it is, for all intents and purposes, treason.
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
กบในกะลาครอบ
Mon Nov 06, 2017 2:30 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1544Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: What to do about North Korea?

http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2017/09 ... es/141070/

It's time national leaders speak realistically about missile defense.

The number one reason we don’t shoot down North Korea’s missiles is that we cannot.
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
กบในกะลาครอบ
Mon Nov 06, 2017 5:17 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 5 of 6
 [ 112 posts ] 
Return to Politics & Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests