|
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. |
On April 20 2017 02:23 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2017 02:18 LightSpectra wrote:On April 20 2017 02:14 zlefin wrote:On April 20 2017 02:11 LightSpectra wrote:On April 20 2017 02:10 zlefin wrote:
Kwark pretty clearly right here; and light is ignoring the statement he himself made. so this one is clearly in Kwark's favor. No more discussion will be useful, since light's ignoring his own statement's rather than retracting them. Sorry, which statement am I ignoring here? seeing as Kwark already explicitly pointed it out to you, and you've ignored it; there's no use in me repeating it. So I shan't discuss more with you on this matter. There is no discussion to be had as you aren't discussing. If you'd like to point out the exact thing I said which you think I am ignoring, I'll be right here. Looking back on all of my posts, it doesn't look like I said anything that I'm not prepared to stand by. This conversation went off the rails when KwarK erroneously began to think that I was describing a nation-wide revolution against the Kim regime. I have never suggested such a thing, I've now twice said that it's highly unlikely. I think North Korea relies on trade with China so much that if there was a total embargo (not just coal), the state would cease being able to marshal enough resources to keep control over the whole country. That's my argument. I've seen nothing yet to suggest that's wrong, just a lot of complaining about how stupid I am for thinking there's some underground democracy waiting to overthrow the Kim regime. "I'm not saying there would be a revolution in the case of a trade embargo, what I'm saying is that the state would no longer be able to keep control of the whole country. I have absolutely no idea why anyone would confuse the state losing control of the country with a revolution but that certainly wasn't my intention. p.s. this general loss of control would include about half the population of the country rebelling against the restrictions on movement and fleeing to China. p.p.s. not a revolution though"
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/revolution?r=75&src=ref&ch=dic
revolution
noun
1.
an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.
If you mean revolution in that sense, then no, I don't think Kim losing control over the country = a revolution. At least that's not what I'd call it.
3.
a sudden, complete or marked change in something:
In that sense, sure.
|
At the core of this discussion is the fact that there is no simple, peaceful solution to the NK issue. Even a collapses of the NK government’s control by revolt would likely result in something similar to Syria. Cutting off food supplies is not likely to result any positive outcome.
|
United States43904 Posts
You're going to increasingly absurd lengths to try and explain why your description of the Kim regime being doomed, the people deserting the regime en masse, the state losing control of the country, the collapse of the military and state forces, the military going rogue and the end of North Korea as a state, all of which happen due to internal collapse, does not amount to a revolution.
This entire argument could be settled if you'd just fucking admit that you were wrong when you said that a trade embargo would cause the collapse of the Korean state instead of this bullshit where you go "I never said it would collapse, I just described a collapse and implied that the things that happen when a state collapses would result from an embargo".
|
Ok KwarK. Call it what you like. When I said "I don't think there will be a revolution," you can go ahead and replace that with "I don't think there will be a coordinated takeover of the state, I think the state will essentially collapse."
Doesn't change what I've said, just the word used to describe it.
On April 20 2017 02:31 KwarK wrote:
This entire argument could be settled if you'd just fucking admit that you were wrong when you said that a trade embargo would cause the collapse of the Korean state instead of this bullshit where you go "I never said it would collapse, I just described a collapse and implied that the things that happen when a state collapses would result from an embargo".
That was in response to you telling me how stupid I am for thinking the citizens of North Korea could form a coherent resistance and take over the state in response to discontent ("You have provided literally no evidence for your absurd claim that a lack of trade with China would somehow trigger the civilian population of North Korea to all simultaneously rise up against their oppressors"), which is nothing I've ever argued.
|
LightSpectra, what are you trying to argue?
|
On April 20 2017 02:38 Plansix wrote:
LightSpectra, what are you trying to argue?
Going back to this post:
Kim Jong-un is not a madman; he wants to stay in power, and to do that he needs three things: (1) Assurance that the U.S. won't bomb him. (2) Enough money to continually bribe his military officers and other influential people in the NK government. (3) Just enough infrastructure that there isn't a total economic breakdown from food riots and power shortages.
The U.S. can provide all three of those things. We just can't give all three simultaneously without looking weak, hence why Donald Trump is trying to do the reverse by cutting off all three simultaneously with China's permission.
But that's really playing with fire.
Most of this discussion has been about point #3. I think NK relies on trade with China in order to avert a total economic breakdown. KwarK does not.
|
On April 20 2017 02:42 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2017 02:38 Plansix wrote:
LightSpectra, what are you trying to argue? Going back to this post: Show nested quote +Kim Jong-un is not a madman; he wants to stay in power, and to do that he needs three things: (1) Assurance that the U.S. won't bomb him. (2) Enough money to continually bribe his military officers and other influential people in the NK government. (3) Just enough infrastructure that there isn't a total economic breakdown from food riots and power shortages.
The U.S. can provide all three of those things. We just can't give all three simultaneously without looking weak, hence why Donald Trump is trying to do the reverse by cutting off all three simultaneously with China's permission.
But that's really playing with fire. Most of this discussion has been about point #3. I think NK relies on trade with China in order to avert a total economic breakdown. KwarK does not.
My understanding was that KwarK was arguing that not only does the US not provide (1), they fundamentally cannot provide (1). And that that is the core problem: NK requires nuclear ICBMs to feel it has attained (1), the international community, and in particular the US, absolutely does not want NK to have nuclear ICBMs under any circumstances.
|
So it was incompetence? Also remember that Mattis held a Press Conference defending the decision to send the carrier group to the Peninsula.
Vice President Mike Pence said Wednesday that misstatements about the location of a U.S. aircraft carrier supposedly on its way to the waters off the Korean peninsula were not made intentionally.
Earlier this month, White House and Pentagon officials announced that the USS Carl Vinson and its accompanying battle group had been deployed off the coast of the Korean peninsula, a response to a missile test by North Korea. But on Monday, Defense News reported that the Carl Vinson was nowhere near the Korean Peninsula and had instead been photographed near Indonesia.
Reporting that the Carl Vinson had not immediately turned north toward the Korean Peninsula was corroborated by The New York Times, Reuters and others, leaving government officials in the awkward position of having to explain why the aircraft carrier had not been deployed as initially described.
Asked during an interview with CNN whether the misstatements from White House and Pentagon officials had been intentional, Pence replied “Oh, I think not,” and he noted the already strong U.S. military presence in the Asia-Pacific region, including in Japan and South Korea. He did not offer an explanation as to why government officials had said the Carl Vinson was steaming for the Sea of Japan when it was not.
California Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, called the Carl Vinson episode “more than embarrassing” for the U.S.
“Because, of course, if the provocation of saying that caused the North to react and we didn’t have our capabilities in the region, that would compound the problem,” he said on “CBS This Morning,” where he framed Pyongyang’s potential to miniaturize a nuclear device and put it on an intercontinental ballistic missile as “probably the most serious national security crisis this president is gonna face.”
“That point will probably come during this four-year term of the president, so that challenge is coming if something doesn’t change,” he warned.
Pence’s CNN interview took place aboard another aircraft carrier, the USS Ronald Reagan, at the U.S. Yokosuka naval base in Tokyo Bay. There, according to The Associated Press, the vice president addressed the Ronald Reagan’s crew, reiterating to them what he and other White House officials have said in recent days, that the U.S. would “work diligently” with allies to maintain and increase pressure on North Korea but that the military would remain ready.
"The United States of America will always seek peace, but under President Trump, the shield stands guard and the sword stands ready," he said. “Those who would challenge our resolve or readiness should know, we will defeat any attack and meet any use of conventional or nuclear weapons with an overwhelming and effective American response.”
Source
|
On April 20 2017 02:47 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2017 02:42 LightSpectra wrote:On April 20 2017 02:38 Plansix wrote:
LightSpectra, what are you trying to argue? Going back to this post: Kim Jong-un is not a madman; he wants to stay in power, and to do that he needs three things: (1) Assurance that the U.S. won't bomb him. (2) Enough money to continually bribe his military officers and other influential people in the NK government. (3) Just enough infrastructure that there isn't a total economic breakdown from food riots and power shortages.
The U.S. can provide all three of those things. We just can't give all three simultaneously without looking weak, hence why Donald Trump is trying to do the reverse by cutting off all three simultaneously with China's permission.
But that's really playing with fire. Most of this discussion has been about point #3. I think NK relies on trade with China in order to avert a total economic breakdown. KwarK does not. My understanding was that KwarK was arguing that not only does the US not provide (1), they fundamentally cannot provide (1). And that that is the core problem: NK requires nuclear ICBMs to feel it has attained (1), the international community, and in particular the US, absolutely does not want NK to have nuclear ICBMs under any circumstances.
I argue that we could provide (1) by engaging NK with a similar deal that we gave to Iran. It's contentious though. Some argue that NK is so close to nuclear ICBMs that they would no longer consider it worth it to trade off. I can't exactly prove them wrong.
|
United States43904 Posts
On April 20 2017 02:47 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2017 02:42 LightSpectra wrote:On April 20 2017 02:38 Plansix wrote:
LightSpectra, what are you trying to argue? Going back to this post: Kim Jong-un is not a madman; he wants to stay in power, and to do that he needs three things: (1) Assurance that the U.S. won't bomb him. (2) Enough money to continually bribe his military officers and other influential people in the NK government. (3) Just enough infrastructure that there isn't a total economic breakdown from food riots and power shortages.
The U.S. can provide all three of those things. We just can't give all three simultaneously without looking weak, hence why Donald Trump is trying to do the reverse by cutting off all three simultaneously with China's permission.
But that's really playing with fire. Most of this discussion has been about point #3. I think NK relies on trade with China in order to avert a total economic breakdown. KwarK does not. My understanding was that KwarK was arguing that not only does the US not provide (1), they fundamentally cannot provide (1). And that that is the core problem: NK requires nuclear ICBMs to feel it has attained (1), the international community, and in particular the US, absolutely does not want NK to have nuclear ICBMs under any circumstances.
His whole premise is dumb as fuck. His argument that the North Korean state can easily survive some famine, in this case describing a famine about five times as deadly as the Ethiopian famine that triggered Live Aid, but that it couldn't survive losing imports is absurd. His argument that NK is developing nuclear missiles capable of hitting the United States as some kind of meta gambit to secure their state from Chinese interference is /r/The_Donald levels of doublethink. His argument that NK could be reined in by guarantees of security from the US and China is delusional in its disconnect to the reality. His argument that NK would stop their nuclear program if certain conditions are met ignores the fact that we already made that agreement with them in 1994 and they violated it. His argument that NK is a state that is dependent upon outside support to be stable ignores the entire foundation of the NK social structure, political ideology, economic framework and military doctrine. There is literally nothing about any part of anything that Light has said that indicates that he could find North Korea on a world map.
The Iranian people have political representation, interests and the means to express those to their rulers. They are a petroleum state and want to rejoin the international community and global economy. The state is outward looking, rather than insular, and looking to take its place as a Shiite regional power within the Middle East. A nuclear weapon is not especially important to Iran's ideology, they wanted it as a deterrent against an American invasion but now they have assurances from China, Russia and European powers that an invasion would be opposed if they uphold their end of the treaty. NK is everything Iran is not. NK's economy is expressly insular, built on the principle of absolute autarky for ideological reasons. For NK, the people having access to the wider world is a threat. The people of NK have nothing like the access to information, collaboration, representation, assembly and protest that the people of Iran do. Iran is by no means perfect, but there is no comparison to be made with NK beyond "Iran is unlike NK". Within the Juche ideology any external dependence for defence is by definition intolerable. Iran has placed its bet on diplomacy, that the US would not attack Iran without a UN mandate and that a UN mandate would not exist if it keeps the bargain. NK cannot, by definition, place any value in diplomacy because within Juche relying upon others is weakness and a NK state that relies upon a Chinese shield is not a free state. Not developing ICBMs is incompatible with the NK state ideology, if nukes that can hit the US are necessary as a deterrent then they must be held in Korean hands.
|
The intelligence community was allegedly directed to provide cover for President Donald Trump’s baseless claim that Trump Tower was wiretapped by his predecessor, the New Yorker reported Tuesday.
An anonymous intelligence source told the magazine’s Ryan Lizza that “the White House said, ‘We are going to mobilize to find something to justify the President’s tweet that he was being surveilled.’”
Asking for an “all-points bulletin,” or a request to look through intelligence reports, White House officials said, “We need to find something that justifies the President’s crazy tweet about surveillance at Trump Tower,” according to Lizza’s source.
The alleged effort to justify the President’s outlandish wiretapping claim sparked a month-long goose chase that culminated with House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) temporarily recusing himself from the panel’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the U.S. election.
The White House did not respond to the New Yorker’s request for comment.
Trump administration officials first said the President didn’t mean that he was literally being wiretapped, or that this alleged surveillance happened at Trump Tower before the election, as his tweets claimed. Three White House staffers were later identified in news reports as having provided Nunes with documents that led him to publicly claim that Trump staffers’ identities had been unmasked in appropriately in transcripts of conversations swept up in routine foreign surveillance.
National security experts said such unmasking requests were sometimes necessary to understand the context of intelligence reports, but Nunes added fuel to the fire by strongly suggesting such requests were improper. He ended up stepping aside from the Russia investigation over allegations that he revealed classified information in his many press conferences on the topic, which he dismissed as “politically motivated.” The House Committee on Ethics is currently investigating whether Nunes made any “unauthorized disclosures of classified information.”
Multiple publications have since cited Republican and Democratic lawmakers and aides who viewed the same documents as Nunes and found nothing unusual to report.
The two unnamed intelligence sources Lizza spoke to said the same, with one calling them “about as plain vanilla as can be” and the other saying “there’s absolutely nothing there.”
Source
|
There's literally nothing you've said which has been backed up by a source, so I'll be right here. If you weren't a mod you would've certainly been warned for flaming, but guess there's not much I can do seeing that you are.
By the way, if you'd ever like to admit "a lack of trade with China would somehow trigger the civilian population of North Korea to all simultaneously rise up against their oppressors" is a strawman, I'll be happy to accept your apology as well.
|
On April 20 2017 02:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:So it was incompetence? Also remember that Mattis held a Press Conference defending the decision to send the carrier group to the Peninsula. Show nested quote +Vice President Mike Pence said Wednesday that misstatements about the location of a U.S. aircraft carrier supposedly on its way to the waters off the Korean peninsula were not made intentionally.
Earlier this month, White House and Pentagon officials announced that the USS Carl Vinson and its accompanying battle group had been deployed off the coast of the Korean peninsula, a response to a missile test by North Korea. But on Monday, Defense News reported that the Carl Vinson was nowhere near the Korean Peninsula and had instead been photographed near Indonesia.
Reporting that the Carl Vinson had not immediately turned north toward the Korean Peninsula was corroborated by The New York Times, Reuters and others, leaving government officials in the awkward position of having to explain why the aircraft carrier had not been deployed as initially described.
Asked during an interview with CNN whether the misstatements from White House and Pentagon officials had been intentional, Pence replied “Oh, I think not,” and he noted the already strong U.S. military presence in the Asia-Pacific region, including in Japan and South Korea. He did not offer an explanation as to why government officials had said the Carl Vinson was steaming for the Sea of Japan when it was not.
California Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, called the Carl Vinson episode “more than embarrassing” for the U.S.
“Because, of course, if the provocation of saying that caused the North to react and we didn’t have our capabilities in the region, that would compound the problem,” he said on “CBS This Morning,” where he framed Pyongyang’s potential to miniaturize a nuclear device and put it on an intercontinental ballistic missile as “probably the most serious national security crisis this president is gonna face.”
“That point will probably come during this four-year term of the president, so that challenge is coming if something doesn’t change,” he warned.
Pence’s CNN interview took place aboard another aircraft carrier, the USS Ronald Reagan, at the U.S. Yokosuka naval base in Tokyo Bay. There, according to The Associated Press, the vice president addressed the Ronald Reagan’s crew, reiterating to them what he and other White House officials have said in recent days, that the U.S. would “work diligently” with allies to maintain and increase pressure on North Korea but that the military would remain ready.
"The United States of America will always seek peace, but under President Trump, the shield stands guard and the sword stands ready," he said. “Those who would challenge our resolve or readiness should know, we will defeat any attack and meet any use of conventional or nuclear weapons with an overwhelming and effective American response.” Source
Hey xDaunt, are you tired of winning yet?
|
On April 20 2017 02:58 LightSpectra wrote:
There's literally nothing you've said which has been backed up by a source, so I'll be right here. If you weren't a mod you would've certainly been warned for flaming, but guess there's not much I can do seeing that you are.
By the way, if you'd ever like to admit "a lack of trade with China would somehow trigger the civilian population of North Korea to all simultaneously rise up against their oppressors" is a strawman, I'll be happy to accept your apology as well.
take complaints about moderation up in the website feedback thread please.
|
United States43904 Posts
On April 20 2017 02:58 LightSpectra wrote:
There's literally nothing you've said which has been backed up by a source, so I'll be right here. If you weren't a mod you would've certainly been warned for flaming, but guess there's not much I can do seeing that you are.
By the way, if you'd ever like to admit "a lack of trade with China would somehow trigger the civilian population of North Korea to all simultaneously rise up against their oppressors" is a strawman, I'll be happy to accept your apology as well.
You said 10 million North Koreans would disregard the restrictions the state places on free movement and desert the state. Presumably in doing so they would have to overwhelm the resistance of whatever state organs opposed them. I guess you've lost track of all the dumb things you've said but you said it.
|
On April 20 2017 03:00 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2017 02:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:So it was incompetence? Also remember that Mattis held a Press Conference defending the decision to send the carrier group to the Peninsula. Vice President Mike Pence said Wednesday that misstatements about the location of a U.S. aircraft carrier supposedly on its way to the waters off the Korean peninsula were not made intentionally.
Earlier this month, White House and Pentagon officials announced that the USS Carl Vinson and its accompanying battle group had been deployed off the coast of the Korean peninsula, a response to a missile test by North Korea. But on Monday, Defense News reported that the Carl Vinson was nowhere near the Korean Peninsula and had instead been photographed near Indonesia.
Reporting that the Carl Vinson had not immediately turned north toward the Korean Peninsula was corroborated by The New York Times, Reuters and others, leaving government officials in the awkward position of having to explain why the aircraft carrier had not been deployed as initially described.
Asked during an interview with CNN whether the misstatements from White House and Pentagon officials had been intentional, Pence replied “Oh, I think not,” and he noted the already strong U.S. military presence in the Asia-Pacific region, including in Japan and South Korea. He did not offer an explanation as to why government officials had said the Carl Vinson was steaming for the Sea of Japan when it was not.
California Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, called the Carl Vinson episode “more than embarrassing” for the U.S.
“Because, of course, if the provocation of saying that caused the North to react and we didn’t have our capabilities in the region, that would compound the problem,” he said on “CBS This Morning,” where he framed Pyongyang’s potential to miniaturize a nuclear device and put it on an intercontinental ballistic missile as “probably the most serious national security crisis this president is gonna face.”
“That point will probably come during this four-year term of the president, so that challenge is coming if something doesn’t change,” he warned.
Pence’s CNN interview took place aboard another aircraft carrier, the USS Ronald Reagan, at the U.S. Yokosuka naval base in Tokyo Bay. There, according to The Associated Press, the vice president addressed the Ronald Reagan’s crew, reiterating to them what he and other White House officials have said in recent days, that the U.S. would “work diligently” with allies to maintain and increase pressure on North Korea but that the military would remain ready.
"The United States of America will always seek peace, but under President Trump, the shield stands guard and the sword stands ready," he said. “Those who would challenge our resolve or readiness should know, we will defeat any attack and meet any use of conventional or nuclear weapons with an overwhelming and effective American response.” Source Hey xDaunt, are you tired of winning yet?
I think most people's vote for Trump was just for a supreme court justice and a stop to the expansion of liberal ideas. In that regard, mission accomplished.
|
lol Trump's petty is always at 1000. You would think Kraft was out there running for 2k and throwing for 4k yards every season.
Didn't even mention Brady, unusual for Trump, but pissy he didn't come to the white house (probably because he didn't want some "look out blocks" and whatever family thing he had going)
I wonder what's next for BillO, kinda feel bad that his octogenarian audience is going to be stuck with that total tool Jessie.
|
I get the feeling Bill O will take the perspective of "yeah well fuck all of you, I'm rich" and just kinda fade away after writing one more book. But might not even write a book.
|
On April 20 2017 02:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:So it was incompetence? Also remember that Mattis held a Press Conference defending the decision to send the carrier group to the Peninsula. Show nested quote +Vice President Mike Pence said Wednesday that misstatements about the location of a U.S. aircraft carrier supposedly on its way to the waters off the Korean peninsula were not made intentionally.
Earlier this month, White House and Pentagon officials announced that the USS Carl Vinson and its accompanying battle group had been deployed off the coast of the Korean peninsula, a response to a missile test by North Korea. But on Monday, Defense News reported that the Carl Vinson was nowhere near the Korean Peninsula and had instead been photographed near Indonesia.
Reporting that the Carl Vinson had not immediately turned north toward the Korean Peninsula was corroborated by The New York Times, Reuters and others, leaving government officials in the awkward position of having to explain why the aircraft carrier had not been deployed as initially described.
Asked during an interview with CNN whether the misstatements from White House and Pentagon officials had been intentional, Pence replied “Oh, I think not,” and he noted the already strong U.S. military presence in the Asia-Pacific region, including in Japan and South Korea. He did not offer an explanation as to why government officials had said the Carl Vinson was steaming for the Sea of Japan when it was not.
California Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, called the Carl Vinson episode “more than embarrassing” for the U.S.
“Because, of course, if the provocation of saying that caused the North to react and we didn’t have our capabilities in the region, that would compound the problem,” he said on “CBS This Morning,” where he framed Pyongyang’s potential to miniaturize a nuclear device and put it on an intercontinental ballistic missile as “probably the most serious national security crisis this president is gonna face.”
“That point will probably come during this four-year term of the president, so that challenge is coming if something doesn’t change,” he warned.
Pence’s CNN interview took place aboard another aircraft carrier, the USS Ronald Reagan, at the U.S. Yokosuka naval base in Tokyo Bay. There, according to The Associated Press, the vice president addressed the Ronald Reagan’s crew, reiterating to them what he and other White House officials have said in recent days, that the U.S. would “work diligently” with allies to maintain and increase pressure on North Korea but that the military would remain ready.
"The United States of America will always seek peace, but under President Trump, the shield stands guard and the sword stands ready," he said. “Those who would challenge our resolve or readiness should know, we will defeat any attack and meet any use of conventional or nuclear weapons with an overwhelming and effective American response.” Source
How are they managing to fuck this up?
Did they seriously lose control of an entire carrier group?
The official line was dead simple. "The carrier group is exactly where we want it to be and going where we want it to go". How do you fuck it up so badly that you are forced to admit you don't know where your own major military assets are, or what they are doing...
A 5 year old could have handled this better because they have the wit to say "I meant to do that".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
