|
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 August 10 2017 00:06 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2017 23:30 Shiragaku wrote:On August 09 2017 23:26 ticklishmusic wrote:
As a response to Trump's dickwaving on Twitter, though (in the spirit of Zero's idea) NK's always been threatening the destruction of America though now they've possibly got the means to do some damage. North Korea's nuclear diplomacy is not an aggressive doctrine at all. This is in response to the destruction of Iraq and Libya and growing power of Iran. Iran was put on the Axis of Evil and the threat of a military strike or invasion was a realistic possibility at one point. It was not until Iran acquired nuclear weapons when the US started taking diplomacy with them much more seriously. What North Korea is doing by acquiring nukes should not be seen as irrational, it's a military junta that does not want to turn into a Qaddafi and wishes to have its political goals be considered at the table. Point I am trying to make is that North Korea is still a tiny threat to its neighbors, but now, their ability to maintain power is stronger. Even without the example of what would happen to NK if it wasn't beneath the Chinese aegis, dependence upon an imperial power (and China is an imperial power) is ideologically intolerable to NK. It's simply incompatible with juche. You must remember that NK was born out of the age of imperialism, and from suffering under a particularly brutal imperial master in Japan. They accept Chinese protection because they must but their national identity requires an independent nuclear deterrent. You're not wrong that NK cares about those examples, but you are wrong that it is a response to them. Also Iran didn't ever get functioning nukes.
I have to disagree. The people who adhere to ideological convictions in international relations after a state has been established are only extremists, idealists, and intellectuals. Juche only developed as an ideology because it was fashionable for the communist and non-aligned nations to do so at the time. If obtaining nuclear weapons was indeed a rational end to the ideology, they would have done so during the Cold War when the nation had the resources and had much more power over the South, its not like weak nations were unable to obtain nukes, Ali Bhutto was able to do so in Pakistan out of all places.
But out of curiosity, if you were a North Korean official committed to maintaining the status quo, would you try to acquire nukes? I can't imagine even the Pentagon guys if they were to do an empathetic experiment would say no to such a question.
And in regards to Iran, they don't have functioning nukes and many of my pro-Iran friends enjoy reminding me that, but their nuclear program definitely got them more respect in recent years.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Bleh, this "the definition of fascism" discussion again. Almost always a matter of "how can we loosely define governments we already don't like as kind of similar to Hitler?" Usually full of selective focus on disliked parties (Trump, Putin, CORPORATE evil) at the expense of focusing on fascist elements within any more sympathetically viewed group.
Forgive me for seeing a circlejerk in the making.
|
Russia is not a fascist state, but most people have to admit that Novorossiya is definitely fascist which shows that Russia is not closed to the idea of fascist allies.
|
On August 10 2017 01:40 LegalLord wrote:
Bleh, this "the definition of fascism" discussion again. Almost always a matter of "how can we loosely define governments we already don't like as kind of similar to Hitler?" Usually full of selective focus on disliked parties (Trump, Putin, CORPORATE evil) at the expense of focusing on fascist elements within any more sympathetically viewed group.
Forgive me for seeing a circlejerk in the making.
One of the few discussions that are even worse: Defining "feminism"
|
United States42656 Posts
On August 10 2017 01:36 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 00:06 KwarK wrote:On August 09 2017 23:30 Shiragaku wrote:On August 09 2017 23:26 ticklishmusic wrote:
As a response to Trump's dickwaving on Twitter, though (in the spirit of Zero's idea) NK's always been threatening the destruction of America though now they've possibly got the means to do some damage. North Korea's nuclear diplomacy is not an aggressive doctrine at all. This is in response to the destruction of Iraq and Libya and growing power of Iran. Iran was put on the Axis of Evil and the threat of a military strike or invasion was a realistic possibility at one point. It was not until Iran acquired nuclear weapons when the US started taking diplomacy with them much more seriously. What North Korea is doing by acquiring nukes should not be seen as irrational, it's a military junta that does not want to turn into a Qaddafi and wishes to have its political goals be considered at the table. Point I am trying to make is that North Korea is still a tiny threat to its neighbors, but now, their ability to maintain power is stronger. Even without the example of what would happen to NK if it wasn't beneath the Chinese aegis, dependence upon an imperial power (and China is an imperial power) is ideologically intolerable to NK. It's simply incompatible with juche. You must remember that NK was born out of the age of imperialism, and from suffering under a particularly brutal imperial master in Japan. They accept Chinese protection because they must but their national identity requires an independent nuclear deterrent. You're not wrong that NK cares about those examples, but you are wrong that it is a response to them. Also Iran didn't ever get functioning nukes. I have to disagree. The people who adhere to ideological convictions in international relations after a state has been established are only extremists, idealists, and intellectuals. Juche only developed as an ideology because it was fashionable for the communist and non-aligned nations to do so at the time. If obtaining nuclear weapons was indeed a rational end to the ideology, they would have done so during the Cold War when the nation had the resources and had much more power over the South, its not like weak nations were unable to obtain nukes, Ali Bhutto was able to do so in Pakistan out of all places. But out of curiosity, if you were a North Korean official committed to maintaining the status quo, would you try to acquire nukes? I can't imagine even the Pentagon guys if they were to do an empathetic experiment would say no to such a question.
Sure, I'd obtain nukes. Before nukes they were dependent upon Chinese goodwill for their continued existence. In the age of Mao, that wasn't ideal but it was acceptable. However the opening of China to the west, the fall of the Soviet Union and the dawn of the single superpower has changed the game completely. Had China cooperated in 2000 then the NK regime may not have survived. That's intolerable to them. Nukes benefit the regime hugely, and the considerable costs are largely irrelevant to them.
NK is a different story to, say, South Africa (which completed their nuclear program only to decommission their nukes) and Iran (which deliberately aborted their nuclear program). In those cases there were stakeholders throughout the nation whose interests could be leveraged against the national interest of nuclear security. Not so in NK, where the only stakeholders whose interests matter are those at the top.
Nukes are a rational, logical and, honestly, a required component of the NK ideology. Nukes are state power, NK is built on state power. But you're right that the urgency is linked to circumstances which have changed.
|
Fascism predates Hitler's rise to power. You can trace the roots of the political theory to as early at the 1880s. It is not some word we made up to describe a goverment after the fall of WW2.
|
On August 09 2017 23:55 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2017 23:48 mahrgell wrote:On August 09 2017 23:22 Plansix wrote:
NK is openly threatening a military strike against Guam, that shit is serious. North Korea is threatening the destruction of the USA for about 50 years now. I'm pretty sure they threatened destroying New York and Washington quite a lot of times. Are there some kind of rare turtles on Guam, or why is it suddenly something completely different, even though their language really hasn't changed. They have missiles that could reach Guam now? They could fire one at any time and we have poor diplomatic channels with the country? I’m not saying we should attack. I am saying that Trumps language only further escalates matters and we don’t good diplomatic channels to de-escalate.
Ah, I understand, previously they could only cause a few million casualties in Seoul. (and even the most optimistic "we alphastrike them" scenarios by western planners assumed several 100k thousand losses in Seaoul) Who cares. Now they could nuke the 160k people of Guam (and of course the turtles). Uhm, yeah... This of course is bad.
Okay, what else has changed?
What is there to assume that NK will in future do more offensive harm than they have previously done? Sorry, but for NK absolutely nothing has changed. They were always all about taking Seoul as hostage and then posturing loudly how great their dear leader is and how they could wipe everyone off this world.
And even in South Korea it was accepted that you have to lose on average 1 soldier per year and listen to this crap, but this is preferable to all alternatives and the NK regime needs it to stay in power, against inner and outer forces.
The fact that they can potentially now retaliate at other targets but Seoul doesn't really change the grand picture from the North Korean view.
The only thing that really changed is that while before everyone ignored the North Korean Gorilla bragging about how he is the greatest male in the pack, now suddenly we found another monkey who seems to want to challenge him for the Gorilla King title.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 10 2017 01:45 Plansix wrote:
Fascism predates Hitler's rise to power. You can trace the roots of the political theory to as early at the 1880s. It is not some word we made up to describe a goverment after the fall of WW2.
Would you deny that the course of the Nazi party pervades, if at times only implicitly, the discussions of the merits, demerits, and definition of fascism?
|
United States42656 Posts
On August 10 2017 01:40 LegalLord wrote:
Bleh, this "the definition of fascism" discussion again. Almost always a matter of "how can we loosely define governments we already don't like as kind of similar to Hitler?" Usually full of selective focus on disliked parties (Trump, Putin, CORPORATE evil) at the expense of focusing on fascist elements within any more sympathetically viewed group.
Forgive me for seeing a circlejerk in the making.
If you think it's just a list of people I don't like, how come xDaunt isn't fascism? I don't call Putin's Russia fascist because I'm Russophobic, I call it fascist because he meets my definition of fascism. Putin is far better than Saddam, but baathism is not the same as traditional fascism so I would not call Saddam fascist. The idea that I'm just using the word to dismiss those who I don't like as being the worst thing relies upon the assumption that I think that fascism is the worst of all things, and I've made it explicitly clear I don't. Pol Pot's communist ideology was far worse than fascism.
Trump's MAGA slogan is fascist because it explicitly references a glorious past which has been lost. I would like him no more if he wanted to build a new world built on white male privilege, rather than restoring the 1950s. Describing something as fascist does not make it intrinsically good or bad. You're assuming I'm attempting to make a value judgement, despite my posts being filled with evidence to the contrary.
But by all means continue to straw man against arguments that have already anticipated your straw men and explicitly disclaimed them. After all, I just dislike Trump and that's why I say I identify elements of fascism within his ideology. If I believed that Saddam was evil I'd be calling Trump a baathist and saying Trump's ideology is built on the creation of a new multiethnic state that will rise above the history of imperialist domination, creating a new national identity that the citizens can embody while discarding the old divisions of tribe, religious sect, and culture. But I've never heard of Saddam, my history knowledge consists only of a vague knowledge that there was a guy called Hitler and he was bad so I just call people I don't like Hitler. Obviously.
|
On August 10 2017 01:42 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 01:40 LegalLord wrote:
Bleh, this "the definition of fascism" discussion again. Almost always a matter of "how can we loosely define governments we already don't like as kind of similar to Hitler?" Usually full of selective focus on disliked parties (Trump, Putin, CORPORATE evil) at the expense of focusing on fascist elements within any more sympathetically viewed group.
Forgive me for seeing a circlejerk in the making. One of the few discussions that are even worse: Defining "feminism"
i'll call and raise you racism or racy-ism. 
|
On August 10 2017 01:53 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 01:42 Mohdoo wrote:On August 10 2017 01:40 LegalLord wrote:
Bleh, this "the definition of fascism" discussion again. Almost always a matter of "how can we loosely define governments we already don't like as kind of similar to Hitler?" Usually full of selective focus on disliked parties (Trump, Putin, CORPORATE evil) at the expense of focusing on fascist elements within any more sympathetically viewed group.
Forgive me for seeing a circlejerk in the making. One of the few discussions that are even worse: Defining "feminism" i'll call and raise you or racism or racy-ism.
That's more of a TL-exclusive thing. But point well taken. Any time the word "race" appears on this board, it's like a batman signal that results in 8 pages of nonsense.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 10 2017 01:42 Shiragaku wrote:
Russia is not a fascist state, but most people have to admit that Novorossiya is definitely fascist which shows that Russia is not closed to the idea of fascist allies.
The breakaway government(s) within what is Eastern Ukraine is/are a provisional military government during wartime. Let's not muddy the waters with gratuitous descriptors.
|
On August 10 2017 01:50 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 01:45 Plansix wrote:
Fascism predates Hitler's rise to power. You can trace the roots of the political theory to as early at the 1880s. It is not some word we made up to describe a goverment after the fall of WW2.
Would you deny that the course of the Nazi party pervades, if at times only implicitly, the discussions of the merits, demerits, and definition of fascism?
Yes, the existence of the Nazi party dominates any discussion of fascism. That doesn't replace the historical context for the word or its meaning at the time.
Also, you don't get to complain about "how can we loosely define governments we already don't like as kind of similar to Hitler?" and then whine when someone points out the historical definition of fascism. You can't have it both ways.
Edit: And Kwark is correct that the nationalist and populist overtones of the Trump campaign had echos of fascism in them. American First was the slogan of the US anti-war pro-nazi party.
|
On August 10 2017 01:57 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 01:53 ticklishmusic wrote:On August 10 2017 01:42 Mohdoo wrote:On August 10 2017 01:40 LegalLord wrote:
Bleh, this "the definition of fascism" discussion again. Almost always a matter of "how can we loosely define governments we already don't like as kind of similar to Hitler?" Usually full of selective focus on disliked parties (Trump, Putin, CORPORATE evil) at the expense of focusing on fascist elements within any more sympathetically viewed group.
Forgive me for seeing a circlejerk in the making. One of the few discussions that are even worse: Defining "feminism" i'll call and raise you or racism or racy-ism. That's more of a TL-exclusive thing. But point well taken. Any time the word "race" appears on this board, it's like a batman signal that results in 8 pages of nonsense.
Agreed. I've learned to steer clear of it or try to change topics with some news snippets.
Regarding my proposition a few pages back: It was tongue in cheek, but I do think we should have some kind of standard here to keep the absurd news from being posted solely because they paint trump in a bad light. Legit news (like my post about the EPA wanting to change the law regarding the western geese) can be posted and not be backed up by additional statements.
|
On August 10 2017 01:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 01:36 Shiragaku wrote:On August 10 2017 00:06 KwarK wrote:On August 09 2017 23:30 Shiragaku wrote:On August 09 2017 23:26 ticklishmusic wrote:
As a response to Trump's dickwaving on Twitter, though (in the spirit of Zero's idea) NK's always been threatening the destruction of America though now they've possibly got the means to do some damage. North Korea's nuclear diplomacy is not an aggressive doctrine at all. This is in response to the destruction of Iraq and Libya and growing power of Iran. Iran was put on the Axis of Evil and the threat of a military strike or invasion was a realistic possibility at one point. It was not until Iran acquired nuclear weapons when the US started taking diplomacy with them much more seriously. What North Korea is doing by acquiring nukes should not be seen as irrational, it's a military junta that does not want to turn into a Qaddafi and wishes to have its political goals be considered at the table. Point I am trying to make is that North Korea is still a tiny threat to its neighbors, but now, their ability to maintain power is stronger. Even without the example of what would happen to NK if it wasn't beneath the Chinese aegis, dependence upon an imperial power (and China is an imperial power) is ideologically intolerable to NK. It's simply incompatible with juche. You must remember that NK was born out of the age of imperialism, and from suffering under a particularly brutal imperial master in Japan. They accept Chinese protection because they must but their national identity requires an independent nuclear deterrent. You're not wrong that NK cares about those examples, but you are wrong that it is a response to them. Also Iran didn't ever get functioning nukes. I have to disagree. The people who adhere to ideological convictions in international relations after a state has been established are only extremists, idealists, and intellectuals. Juche only developed as an ideology because it was fashionable for the communist and non-aligned nations to do so at the time. If obtaining nuclear weapons was indeed a rational end to the ideology, they would have done so during the Cold War when the nation had the resources and had much more power over the South, its not like weak nations were unable to obtain nukes, Ali Bhutto was able to do so in Pakistan out of all places. But out of curiosity, if you were a North Korean official committed to maintaining the status quo, would you try to acquire nukes? I can't imagine even the Pentagon guys if they were to do an empathetic experiment would say no to such a question. Sure, I'd obtain nukes. Before nukes they were dependent upon Chinese goodwill for their continued existence. In the age of Mao, that wasn't ideal but it was acceptable. However the opening of China to the west, the fall of the Soviet Union and the dawn of the single superpower has changed the game completely. Had China cooperated in 2000 then the NK regime may not have survived. That's intolerable to them. Nukes benefit the regime hugely, and the considerable costs are largely irrelevant to them. NK is a different story to, say, South Africa (which completed their nuclear program only to decommission their nukes) and Iran (which deliberately aborted their nuclear program). In those cases there were stakeholders throughout the nation whose interests could be leveraged against the national interest of nuclear security. Not so in NK, where the only stakeholders whose interests matter are those at the top. Nukes are a rational, logical and, honestly, a required component of the NK ideology. Nukes are state power, NK is built on state power. But you're right that the urgency is linked to circumstances which have changed.
I see, fair enough.
On August 10 2017 01:58 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 01:42 Shiragaku wrote:
Russia is not a fascist state, but most people have to admit that Novorossiya is definitely fascist which shows that Russia is not closed to the idea of fascist allies. The breakaway government(s) within what is Eastern Ukraine is/are a provisional military government during wartime. Let's not muddy the waters with gratuitous descriptors.
Novorossiya is definitely a fascist state. If we define fascism as
[Fascism is] a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anti-conservative nationalism. As such it is an ideology deeply bound up with modernization and modernity, one which has assumed a considerable variety of external forms to adapt itself to the particular historical and national context in which it appears, and has drawn a wide range of cultural and intellectual currents, both left and right, anti-modern and pro-modern, to articulate itself as a body of ideas, slogans, and doctrine. In the inter-war period it manifested itself primarily in the form of an elite-led "armed party" which attempted, mostly unsuccessfully, to generate a populist mass movement through a liturgical style of politics and a programme of radical policies which promised to overcome a threat posed by international socialism, to end the degeneration affecting the nation under liberalism, and to bring about a radical renewal of its social, political and cultural life as part of what was widely imagined to be the new era being inaugurated in Western civilization. The core mobilizing myth of fascism which conditions its ideology, propaganda, style of politics and actions is the vision of the nation's imminent rebirth from decadence
then it meets the requirements.
I can go into more detail if you want, but the Red camp promotes a revival of Soviet nationalism and expansionism in the face of liberal capitalist domination, the Whites are monarchists and Christian Orthodox who want a revival of the Russian Empire, and the Brown Camp is an outright fascist and Third Positionist camp that adheres to Alexander Dugin and creation of a new Eurasian Empire.
I have no doubt that the ideological fervor has calmed down a bit as all radicals tend to do over time when it acquires power, but all of these nationalists behind the camps see the state as what Russia should be.
|
On August 10 2017 01:00 Doodsmack wrote:
This feels like a huge deal. Am I missing something?
|
On August 10 2017 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:This feels like a huge deal. Am I missing something?
I'll bet they want Manafort to flip so they did this pretty aggressively.
|
United States42656 Posts
Wouldn't we expect that? I'm somewhat assuming that pretty much everyone close to Trump who has received money from shady Russians is getting their banking records examined. Manafort is as shady as anyone except perhaps Page, who appears to be the Shkreli of shadow diplomacy. If he's not getting investigated then it what sense would there even be an investigation?
|
It's the difference between getting a subpoena and being raided at dawn.
|
Yeah, search warrants are going to happen in this case, it is a criminal investigation. They don’t trust suspects to turn over all the evidence.
On August 10 2017 02:47 Doodsmack wrote:
It's the difference between getting a subpoena and being raided at dawn.
That is how search warrants work. There is nothing really suprising about this beyond it shows they have probable cause.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
