|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United States43739 Posts
On April 07 2017 00:22 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2017 00:01 KwarK wrote:On April 06 2017 23:55 LegalLord wrote:On April 06 2017 23:51 KwarK wrote:On April 06 2017 23:48 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly with Trump's inner circle, I see no particular clear inclination towards Russia among them. It's what gets the most attention right now, but I just see a more general case of incompetent nitwits who put coin above country. It's just the billionaire hiring talent of Mr. President. I mean sure, if we ignore the deliberate favouritism shown to Russia in Trump's foreign policy, the collaboration with them during the election and the endless financial ties then yeah, I can see how we'd get to that conclusion. Favoritism? All I saw was generic Republican populist bluster ("look how much Putin wins@@@") then a guy who swoons to the slightest compliment from another world leader. And no sense of shame so the leaks were taken without question as a boost for his goals. Everything else suggests that he has shitty taste in associates. And the talk of Crimean recognition, sanctions being ended, a free hand in Syria and Ukraine? Trump was rolling out the red carpet for Putin in Eastern Europe until he got reined in by his own party for making it too obvious. And for the purpose of comparison, Trump is a man who can't even get along with Australia and everyone gets along with Australia. Trump's desired foreign policy towards Russia simply doesn't make sense. Even as a flattered idiot. He says nonsense and takes it back every day. He quite seamlessly moved between "Russia doing good" to "it's Obama's fault that Russia doing good" and back again. You're stretching a wee bit too hard to push a narrative. And Trump never exactly "got along" with Russia or its leadership. He just throws out praise for fun. He also had that phone call with Putin where he randomly decided that nuclear treaties were unfair to America.
And that phone call where he gave Putin a license to annex Ukraine.
|
Why would they ever do it? At best they will have a couple of nukes. Sure, they can inflict brutal civilian damage (provided they tech actually hits something, it's not really trivial to make an ICBM work), but what then? After a nuclear attack, the US will wipe the country off the face of the Earth and everyone else will just silently watch, because that's the obvious protocol in case of a nuclear attack. That is a great net loss even for the Glorious Leader.
The usefulness of a nuke for a small nation is dubious at best. At most they can threaten retaliation in case of aggression, but even that isn't that convincing when the re-retalitation wipes the out within hours.
|
Norway28779 Posts
They can already reach Japan and South Korea, no? Both significantly more densely populated than the american west coast. In a way, the timer ran out quite some time ago.
I mean, in a sense I also agree, because if you let North Korea develop actual MAD capabilities, then who knows wtf they'd demand. But 'reach american soil' isn't a significant timer at all, imo. I also think the Kim Dynasty cares about self-preservation more than anything else, and I think targeting American soil is about as non-self-preservationy as it gets.
|
On April 07 2017 00:22 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2017 00:01 KwarK wrote:On April 06 2017 23:55 LegalLord wrote:On April 06 2017 23:51 KwarK wrote:On April 06 2017 23:48 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly with Trump's inner circle, I see no particular clear inclination towards Russia among them. It's what gets the most attention right now, but I just see a more general case of incompetent nitwits who put coin above country. It's just the billionaire hiring talent of Mr. President. I mean sure, if we ignore the deliberate favouritism shown to Russia in Trump's foreign policy, the collaboration with them during the election and the endless financial ties then yeah, I can see how we'd get to that conclusion. Favoritism? All I saw was generic Republican populist bluster ("look how much Putin wins@@@") then a guy who swoons to the slightest compliment from another world leader. And no sense of shame so the leaks were taken without question as a boost for his goals. Everything else suggests that he has shitty taste in associates. And the talk of Crimean recognition, sanctions being ended, a free hand in Syria and Ukraine? Trump was rolling out the red carpet for Putin in Eastern Europe until he got reined in by his own party for making it too obvious. And for the purpose of comparison, Trump is a man who can't even get along with Australia and everyone gets along with Australia. Trump's desired foreign policy towards Russia simply doesn't make sense. Even as a flattered idiot. He says nonsense and takes it back every day. He quite seamlessly moved between "Russia doing good" to "it's Obama's fault that Russia doing good" and back again. You're stretching a wee bit too hard to push a narrative. And Trump never exactly "got along" with Russia or its leadership. He just throws out praise for fun. He also had that phone call with Putin where he randomly decided that nuclear treaties were unfair to America.
This sounds like you're deliberately playing down Trump's consistent leniency towards Russia's actions in Ukraine and the sanctions. And the party platform change on Ukraine. Trump consistently said let's get along with Russia, wouldn't that be a good thing? All so that we could fight ISIS, which is just sham reasoning. I don't think he was waffling on Russia.
|
|
|
United States43739 Posts
On April 07 2017 00:24 opisska wrote:
Why would they ever do it? At best they will have a couple of nukes. Sure, they can inflict brutal civilian damage (provided they tech actually hits something, it's not really trivial to make an ICBM work), but what then? After a nuclear attack, the US will wipe the country off the face of the Earth and everyone else will just silently watch, because that's the obvious protocol in case of a nuclear attack. That is a great net loss even for the Glorious Leader.
The usefulness of a nuke for a small nation is dubious at best. At most they can threaten retaliation in case of aggression, but even that isn't that convincing when the re-retalitation wipes the out within hours.
A nuke is the ultimate guarantee against foreign intervention in response to the Bush doctrine. When Bush listed his Axis of Evil the lesson was pretty clear to everyone. Iraq had disarmed in an attempt to integrate back into the global economy and as such got invaded. North Korea had not discontinued its nuclear program, at the price of isolation, sanctions and poverty, but was left alone. It's why Iran, the third country on Bush's list, was pretty much forced to make a nuclear program. It's a guarantee of sovereignty.
Or consider the example of Ukraine. A state that had always been bullied and dominated by its larger neighbour including a particularly brutal recent history of ethnic cleansing and genocide. Ukraine willingly gave up its nuclear deterrent in exchange for promises of non interference and a guarantee of backing by the nuclear powers in any case of violations of its territorial integrity.
If we want not getting nuclear weapons to be popular then we have to stop proving the countries that get them right all the time. The only reason Iran gave up on theirs is because they no longer believe the United States to be a credible military threat worth the economic costs of having a nuclear weapon to deter.
|
On April 07 2017 00:27 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2017 00:22 LegalLord wrote:On April 07 2017 00:01 KwarK wrote:On April 06 2017 23:55 LegalLord wrote:On April 06 2017 23:51 KwarK wrote:On April 06 2017 23:48 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly with Trump's inner circle, I see no particular clear inclination towards Russia among them. It's what gets the most attention right now, but I just see a more general case of incompetent nitwits who put coin above country. It's just the billionaire hiring talent of Mr. President. I mean sure, if we ignore the deliberate favouritism shown to Russia in Trump's foreign policy, the collaboration with them during the election and the endless financial ties then yeah, I can see how we'd get to that conclusion. Favoritism? All I saw was generic Republican populist bluster ("look how much Putin wins@@@") then a guy who swoons to the slightest compliment from another world leader. And no sense of shame so the leaks were taken without question as a boost for his goals. Everything else suggests that he has shitty taste in associates. And the talk of Crimean recognition, sanctions being ended, a free hand in Syria and Ukraine? Trump was rolling out the red carpet for Putin in Eastern Europe until he got reined in by his own party for making it too obvious. And for the purpose of comparison, Trump is a man who can't even get along with Australia and everyone gets along with Australia. Trump's desired foreign policy towards Russia simply doesn't make sense. Even as a flattered idiot. He says nonsense and takes it back every day. He quite seamlessly moved between "Russia doing good" to "it's Obama's fault that Russia doing good" and back again. You're stretching a wee bit too hard to push a narrative. And Trump never exactly "got along" with Russia or its leadership. He just throws out praise for fun. He also had that phone call with Putin where he randomly decided that nuclear treaties were unfair to America. This sounds like you're deliberately playing down Trump's consistent leniency towards Russia's actions in Ukraine and the sanctions. And the party platform change on Ukraine. Trump consistently said let's get along with Russia, wouldn't that be a good thing? All so that we could fight ISIS, which is just sham reasoning. I don't think he was waffling on Russia.
I think he has no idea what he's doing on many fronts, and that just happens to be the one that gained the most attention because of existing circumstances and the DNC leaks.
A larger conspiracy has yet to be proven and I see no indication that a larger conspiracy is more likely than just stupid all around. The latter narrative seems to have more support, in fact.
|
United States43739 Posts
On April 07 2017 00:35 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2017 00:27 Doodsmack wrote:On April 07 2017 00:22 LegalLord wrote:On April 07 2017 00:01 KwarK wrote:On April 06 2017 23:55 LegalLord wrote:On April 06 2017 23:51 KwarK wrote:On April 06 2017 23:48 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly with Trump's inner circle, I see no particular clear inclination towards Russia among them. It's what gets the most attention right now, but I just see a more general case of incompetent nitwits who put coin above country. It's just the billionaire hiring talent of Mr. President. I mean sure, if we ignore the deliberate favouritism shown to Russia in Trump's foreign policy, the collaboration with them during the election and the endless financial ties then yeah, I can see how we'd get to that conclusion. Favoritism? All I saw was generic Republican populist bluster ("look how much Putin wins@@@") then a guy who swoons to the slightest compliment from another world leader. And no sense of shame so the leaks were taken without question as a boost for his goals. Everything else suggests that he has shitty taste in associates. And the talk of Crimean recognition, sanctions being ended, a free hand in Syria and Ukraine? Trump was rolling out the red carpet for Putin in Eastern Europe until he got reined in by his own party for making it too obvious. And for the purpose of comparison, Trump is a man who can't even get along with Australia and everyone gets along with Australia. Trump's desired foreign policy towards Russia simply doesn't make sense. Even as a flattered idiot. He says nonsense and takes it back every day. He quite seamlessly moved between "Russia doing good" to "it's Obama's fault that Russia doing good" and back again. You're stretching a wee bit too hard to push a narrative. And Trump never exactly "got along" with Russia or its leadership. He just throws out praise for fun. He also had that phone call with Putin where he randomly decided that nuclear treaties were unfair to America. This sounds like you're deliberately playing down Trump's consistent leniency towards Russia's actions in Ukraine and the sanctions. And the party platform change on Ukraine. Trump consistently said let's get along with Russia, wouldn't that be a good thing? All so that we could fight ISIS, which is just sham reasoning. I don't think he was waffling on Russia. I think he has no idea what he's doing on many fronts, and that just happens to be the one that gained the most attention because of existing circumstances and the DNC leaks. A larger conspiracy has yet to be proven and I see no indication that a larger conspiracy is more likely than just stupid all around. The latter narrative seems to have more support, in fact.
He's fucking up all around, for sure, but which other countries has he been fucking up in a way that favours them at the expense of traditional American policy?
|
On April 07 2017 00:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2017 00:35 LegalLord wrote:On April 07 2017 00:27 Doodsmack wrote:On April 07 2017 00:22 LegalLord wrote:On April 07 2017 00:01 KwarK wrote:On April 06 2017 23:55 LegalLord wrote:On April 06 2017 23:51 KwarK wrote:On April 06 2017 23:48 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly with Trump's inner circle, I see no particular clear inclination towards Russia among them. It's what gets the most attention right now, but I just see a more general case of incompetent nitwits who put coin above country. It's just the billionaire hiring talent of Mr. President. I mean sure, if we ignore the deliberate favouritism shown to Russia in Trump's foreign policy, the collaboration with them during the election and the endless financial ties then yeah, I can see how we'd get to that conclusion. Favoritism? All I saw was generic Republican populist bluster ("look how much Putin wins@@@") then a guy who swoons to the slightest compliment from another world leader. And no sense of shame so the leaks were taken without question as a boost for his goals. Everything else suggests that he has shitty taste in associates. And the talk of Crimean recognition, sanctions being ended, a free hand in Syria and Ukraine? Trump was rolling out the red carpet for Putin in Eastern Europe until he got reined in by his own party for making it too obvious. And for the purpose of comparison, Trump is a man who can't even get along with Australia and everyone gets along with Australia. Trump's desired foreign policy towards Russia simply doesn't make sense. Even as a flattered idiot. He says nonsense and takes it back every day. He quite seamlessly moved between "Russia doing good" to "it's Obama's fault that Russia doing good" and back again. You're stretching a wee bit too hard to push a narrative. And Trump never exactly "got along" with Russia or its leadership. He just throws out praise for fun. He also had that phone call with Putin where he randomly decided that nuclear treaties were unfair to America. This sounds like you're deliberately playing down Trump's consistent leniency towards Russia's actions in Ukraine and the sanctions. And the party platform change on Ukraine. Trump consistently said let's get along with Russia, wouldn't that be a good thing? All so that we could fight ISIS, which is just sham reasoning. I don't think he was waffling on Russia. I think he has no idea what he's doing on many fronts, and that just happens to be the one that gained the most attention because of existing circumstances and the DNC leaks. A larger conspiracy has yet to be proven and I see no indication that a larger conspiracy is more likely than just stupid all around. The latter narrative seems to have more support, in fact. He's fucking up all around, for sure, but which other countries has he been fucking up in a way that favours them at the expense of traditional American policy?
Well China may or may not be happy to know that Trump abandoned the TPP - a troubling, but admittedly difficult-to-scrap trade agreement - with no follow-up plan. And then proved that he could be won over by a few personal bribes from the Chinese government.
Everyone who considers the US an ally, though, sucks for them.
|
Can't we just drone strike Kim Jong un, or maybe try to assasinste with help from other countries like south Korea and Japan? I don't think conventional war or nukes are the solution here. But I'm also not a military strategist.
|
On April 07 2017 00:56 biology]major wrote:
Can't we just drone strike Kim Jong un, or maybe try to assassinate with help from other countries like south Korea and Japan? I don't think conventional war or nukes are the solution here. But I'm also not a military strategist.
The problem with removing the head of dictatorship with access to nukes is that you now have civil war in a country with access to nukes.
Its a case of '' better the crazy you know, then the utterly unknown".
|
United States43739 Posts
On April 07 2017 00:56 biology]major wrote:
Can't we just drone strike Kim Jong un, or maybe try to assasinste with help from other countries like south Korea and Japan? I don't think conventional war or nukes are the solution here. But I'm also not a military strategist.
South Korea is held hostage against exactly that kind of shit.
|
On April 07 2017 00:56 biology]major wrote:
Can't we just drone strike Kim Jong un, or maybe try to assasinste with help from other countries like south Korea and Japan? I don't think conventional war or nukes are the solution here. But I'm also not a military strategist.
If it were feasible it would've been done already. NK has enoug hair defense that having drone running around would be noticed and fired upon, and considered an act of war.
Also, that stlil leaves the north korean regime in charge, and possibly leads to a bloody succession war.
assassinating people is actually pretty hard when they have tight security.
so in short, no those aren't options.
|
On April 07 2017 00:56 biology]major wrote:
Can't we just drone strike Kim Jong un, or maybe try to assasinste with help from other countries like south Korea and Japan? I don't think conventional war or nukes are the solution here. But I'm also not a military strategist.
North Korea should have enough defenses or radars to deflect a drone. Even if the attack somehow succeeded, the sheer chaos that would erupt would put East Asia into a terrifying situation. Battles over succession and control are not really good for an unstable country with nukes.
|
Wanna know how to topple NK? Regime Change via China. The biggest threat to Kim Jong Un, cellphones. More and more keep showing up in the hands of ordinary citizens that trade/buy them from Chinese tourists who NK wouldn't dare to arrest. No matter how countless many they confiscate or arrest. Thus videos start surfacing on the net, social media is explored and so on.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/secret-state-of-north-korea/
|
Clearly need to learn from SK, and just blast K-pop across the DMZ.
Edit: Oh, nvm, apparently NK threatened war over that.
|
|
|
Dealing with NK would definitely need China, either through peaceful means or militarily. I am sure China doesn't want such a rogue state on their border either but since the US is a "rival" it doesn't want a US influenced state there either. If China was on board with NK regime change it would have been done by now.
|
Interestingly, the use of the filibuster to fuck with judicial nominees is a relatively new thing that democrats started. The first time it was done to allow a minority to stop the majority from appointing a judge was during W's presidency when democrats filibustered Miguel Estrada. So this isn't exactly a new institution/practice that the Senate is eliminating.
|
Even after reading some explanations, I don't understand how the fillibuster works. The talking has to end eventually, no? I understand it as a delaying tactics, but how does it prevent passing something completely? In Czech it was sometimes done at the end of the term, when the parliament dissolves and everything gets rebooted, but US is not anywhere near elections now.
It also all hinges on one party having between 50-60 percent of votes, that happens so often? The split is so stable?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
