|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 27 2019 01:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2019 01:45 Gorsameth wrote:On May 27 2019 01:11 GreenHorizons wrote:
Between the two of them (Trump and Kim Jong-Un) which is really the more predictable and trustworthy (human rights violations aside)? Is that even a question? Kim obviously. (presuming you're not being sarcastic) Any hope for sanctions to take the most potent offensive nuclear arsenal from someone so unpredictable, dishonest, and known to arm terrorists around the globe? I think that it's someone that also oversees a rather fascist police force, illegal domestic spying, and human rights violations around the globe (either directly or through funding/arming) that compares to the best of the worst along with a host of other issues should be taken into account as well. What is unpredictable about Kim?
And all the rest isn't really relevant to the question who is more predictable or trustworthy. Kim is a terrible human being but his goals are clear, to maintain control of North Korea and his actions in light of that are predictable. And he isn't particularly trustworthy at all but basically every word out of Trump's mouth is a strait up lie so its a case of 100% is more then 90%.
Do I think sanctions work? No, anyone who is willing and able to literally starve his people to death isn't going to care about any sanction you can place on him. Pressure on NK comes from pressure on China to stop protecting him.
|
On May 27 2019 01:45 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2019 01:11 GreenHorizons wrote:
Between the two of them (Trump and Kim Jong-Un) which is really the more predictable and trustworthy (human rights violations aside)? Is that even a question? Kim obviously.
Yup. Didn't like 90% of this forum predict exactly how the big balleyhooed Trump summit with Kim would go?
|
|
|
On May 27 2019 02:11 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2019 01:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 27 2019 01:45 Gorsameth wrote:On May 27 2019 01:11 GreenHorizons wrote:
Between the two of them (Trump and Kim Jong-Un) which is really the more predictable and trustworthy (human rights violations aside)? Is that even a question? Kim obviously. (presuming you're not being sarcastic) Any hope for sanctions to take the most potent offensive nuclear arsenal from someone so unpredictable, dishonest, and known to arm terrorists around the globe? I think that it's someone that also oversees a rather fascist police force, illegal domestic spying, and human rights violations around the globe (either directly or through funding/arming) that compares to the best of the worst along with a host of other issues should be taken into account as well. What is unpredictable about Kim? And all the rest isn't really relevant to the question who is more predictable or trustworthy. Kim is a terrible human being but his goals are clear, to maintain control of North Korea and his actions in light of that are predictable. And he isn't particularly trustworthy at all but basically every word out of Trump's mouth is a strait up lie so its a case of 100% is more then 90%. Do I think sanctions work? No, anyone who is willing and able to literally starve his people to death isn't going to care about any sanction you can place on him. Pressure on NK comes from pressure on China to stop protecting him.
Considering how tight north korean sanctions have been for years, sanctions have little stay on the ruling class of north korea. China is far from the only country that profits off of north korea. Other countries fund north korea though north korean temporary work visas, in which they hold their families hostage and keep a close eye on them to make sure they don't defect while sending their wages back to north korea.
|
On May 27 2019 02:11 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2019 01:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 27 2019 01:45 Gorsameth wrote:On May 27 2019 01:11 GreenHorizons wrote:
Between the two of them (Trump and Kim Jong-Un) which is really the more predictable and trustworthy (human rights violations aside)? Is that even a question? Kim obviously. (presuming you're not being sarcastic) Any hope for sanctions to take the most potent offensive nuclear arsenal from someone so unpredictable, dishonest, and known to arm terrorists around the globe? I think that it's someone that also oversees a rather fascist police force, illegal domestic spying, and human rights violations around the globe (either directly or through funding/arming) that compares to the best of the worst along with a host of other issues should be taken into account as well. What is unpredictable about Kim? And all the rest isn't really relevant to the question who is more predictable or trustworthy. Kim is a terrible human being but his goals are clear, to maintain control of North Korea and his actions in light of that are predictable. And he isn't particularly trustworthy at all but basically every word out of Trump's mouth is a strait up lie so its a case of 100% is more then 90%. Do I think sanctions work? No, anyone who is willing and able to literally starve his people to death isn't going to care about any sanction you can place on him. Pressure on NK comes from pressure on China to stop protecting him.
Since Kim doesn't have desires of world domination and the Korea's are on relatively good terms (particularly when you remove the US from the equation) would the better and more equitable policy be then to remove sanctions, allow him to have a nuclear program and provide aid while relations warm and you work to reduce anti-western sentiments and bad domestic policies?
Not completely unlike our approach to countries like Israel or Saudi Arabia?
|
On May 27 2019 02:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2019 02:11 Gorsameth wrote:On May 27 2019 01:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 27 2019 01:45 Gorsameth wrote:On May 27 2019 01:11 GreenHorizons wrote:
Between the two of them (Trump and Kim Jong-Un) which is really the more predictable and trustworthy (human rights violations aside)? Is that even a question? Kim obviously. (presuming you're not being sarcastic) Any hope for sanctions to take the most potent offensive nuclear arsenal from someone so unpredictable, dishonest, and known to arm terrorists around the globe? I think that it's someone that also oversees a rather fascist police force, illegal domestic spying, and human rights violations around the globe (either directly or through funding/arming) that compares to the best of the worst along with a host of other issues should be taken into account as well. What is unpredictable about Kim? And all the rest isn't really relevant to the question who is more predictable or trustworthy. Kim is a terrible human being but his goals are clear, to maintain control of North Korea and his actions in light of that are predictable. And he isn't particularly trustworthy at all but basically every word out of Trump's mouth is a strait up lie so its a case of 100% is more then 90%. Do I think sanctions work? No, anyone who is willing and able to literally starve his people to death isn't going to care about any sanction you can place on him. Pressure on NK comes from pressure on China to stop protecting him. Since Kim doesn't have desires of world domination and the Korea's are on relatively good terms (particularly when you remove the US from the equation) would the better and more equitable policy be then to remove sanctions, allow him to have a nuclear program and provide aid while relations warm and you work to reduce anti-western sentiments and bad domestic policies? Not completely unlike our approach to countries like Israel or Saudi Arabia?
What would be the difference between this and Iran?
|
On May 27 2019 02:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2019 02:11 Gorsameth wrote:On May 27 2019 01:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 27 2019 01:45 Gorsameth wrote:On May 27 2019 01:11 GreenHorizons wrote:
Between the two of them (Trump and Kim Jong-Un) which is really the more predictable and trustworthy (human rights violations aside)? Is that even a question? Kim obviously. (presuming you're not being sarcastic) Any hope for sanctions to take the most potent offensive nuclear arsenal from someone so unpredictable, dishonest, and known to arm terrorists around the globe? I think that it's someone that also oversees a rather fascist police force, illegal domestic spying, and human rights violations around the globe (either directly or through funding/arming) that compares to the best of the worst along with a host of other issues should be taken into account as well. What is unpredictable about Kim? And all the rest isn't really relevant to the question who is more predictable or trustworthy. Kim is a terrible human being but his goals are clear, to maintain control of North Korea and his actions in light of that are predictable. And he isn't particularly trustworthy at all but basically every word out of Trump's mouth is a strait up lie so its a case of 100% is more then 90%. Do I think sanctions work? No, anyone who is willing and able to literally starve his people to death isn't going to care about any sanction you can place on him. Pressure on NK comes from pressure on China to stop protecting him. Since Kim doesn't have desires of world domination and the Korea's are on relatively good terms (particularly when you remove the US from the equation) would the better and more equitable policy be then to remove sanctions, allow him to have a nuclear program and provide aid while relations warm and you work to reduce anti-western sentiments and bad domestic policies? Not completely unlike our approach to countries like Israel or Saudi Arabia? I don't think giving Nukes to anyone is a good idea and giving everyone nukes doesn't make the world a better place.
But yes I could see removing sanctions as a result of proper negotiations being an option, but I would do so in heavy coordination with SK, since they are the ones that actually live next to them.
I wouldn't compare it to Israel or SA but more to what Obama attempted to do with Iran. Stop a country from getting nukes and working to try and remove the reason for those nukes in the first place by improving relations. (Nukes being the only real defence against the possibility of an American attack)
|
|
|
On May 27 2019 02:27 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2019 02:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 27 2019 02:11 Gorsameth wrote:On May 27 2019 01:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 27 2019 01:45 Gorsameth wrote:On May 27 2019 01:11 GreenHorizons wrote:
Between the two of them (Trump and Kim Jong-Un) which is really the more predictable and trustworthy (human rights violations aside)? Is that even a question? Kim obviously. (presuming you're not being sarcastic) Any hope for sanctions to take the most potent offensive nuclear arsenal from someone so unpredictable, dishonest, and known to arm terrorists around the globe? I think that it's someone that also oversees a rather fascist police force, illegal domestic spying, and human rights violations around the globe (either directly or through funding/arming) that compares to the best of the worst along with a host of other issues should be taken into account as well. What is unpredictable about Kim? And all the rest isn't really relevant to the question who is more predictable or trustworthy. Kim is a terrible human being but his goals are clear, to maintain control of North Korea and his actions in light of that are predictable. And he isn't particularly trustworthy at all but basically every word out of Trump's mouth is a strait up lie so its a case of 100% is more then 90%. Do I think sanctions work? No, anyone who is willing and able to literally starve his people to death isn't going to care about any sanction you can place on him. Pressure on NK comes from pressure on China to stop protecting him. Since Kim doesn't have desires of world domination and the Korea's are on relatively good terms (particularly when you remove the US from the equation) would the better and more equitable policy be then to remove sanctions, allow him to have a nuclear program and provide aid while relations warm and you work to reduce anti-western sentiments and bad domestic policies? Not completely unlike our approach to countries like Israel or Saudi Arabia? I don't think giving Nukes to anyone is a good idea and giving everyone nukes doesn't make the world a better place. But yes I could see removing sanctions as a result of proper negotiations being an option, but I would do so in heavy coordination with SK, since they are the ones that actually live next to them. I wouldn't compare it to Israel or SA but more to what Obama attempted to do with Iran. Stop a country from getting nukes and working to try and remove the reason for those nukes in the first place by improving relations. (Nukes being the only real defence against the possibility of an American attack)
Iran actually has desires for increased regional dominance whereas N. Korea doesn't. Granted more nuclear isn't great I didn't say nuclear weapons either. Honestly I'd say Venezuela probably stands as the closest comparison all things considered.
The primary (only) reason for invasion/sanctions/etc... is their domestic policy. Whereas countries like Saudi Arabia are starving Yemen, bombing children on purpose, beheading citizens for bullshit, chopping up journalists and that's just whats solidly confirmed. Their treatment of women citizens and their immigrant workforce isn't very good either.
That's all to say we've had the wrong policy on NK for decades imo and Trump trusting Kim inadvertently gets us better policy.
EDIT: I said nuclear program, I meant for domestic energy production, though weaponization is a legitimate risk.
|
On May 27 2019 02:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2019 02:27 Gorsameth wrote:On May 27 2019 02:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 27 2019 02:11 Gorsameth wrote:On May 27 2019 01:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 27 2019 01:45 Gorsameth wrote:On May 27 2019 01:11 GreenHorizons wrote:
Between the two of them (Trump and Kim Jong-Un) which is really the more predictable and trustworthy (human rights violations aside)? Is that even a question? Kim obviously. (presuming you're not being sarcastic) Any hope for sanctions to take the most potent offensive nuclear arsenal from someone so unpredictable, dishonest, and known to arm terrorists around the globe? I think that it's someone that also oversees a rather fascist police force, illegal domestic spying, and human rights violations around the globe (either directly or through funding/arming) that compares to the best of the worst along with a host of other issues should be taken into account as well. What is unpredictable about Kim? And all the rest isn't really relevant to the question who is more predictable or trustworthy. Kim is a terrible human being but his goals are clear, to maintain control of North Korea and his actions in light of that are predictable. And he isn't particularly trustworthy at all but basically every word out of Trump's mouth is a strait up lie so its a case of 100% is more then 90%. Do I think sanctions work? No, anyone who is willing and able to literally starve his people to death isn't going to care about any sanction you can place on him. Pressure on NK comes from pressure on China to stop protecting him. Since Kim doesn't have desires of world domination and the Korea's are on relatively good terms (particularly when you remove the US from the equation) would the better and more equitable policy be then to remove sanctions, allow him to have a nuclear program and provide aid while relations warm and you work to reduce anti-western sentiments and bad domestic policies? Not completely unlike our approach to countries like Israel or Saudi Arabia? I don't think giving Nukes to anyone is a good idea and giving everyone nukes doesn't make the world a better place. But yes I could see removing sanctions as a result of proper negotiations being an option, but I would do so in heavy coordination with SK, since they are the ones that actually live next to them. I wouldn't compare it to Israel or SA but more to what Obama attempted to do with Iran. Stop a country from getting nukes and working to try and remove the reason for those nukes in the first place by improving relations. (Nukes being the only real defence against the possibility of an American attack) Iran actually has desires for increased regional dominance whereas N. Korea doesn't. Granted more nuclear isn't great I didn't say nuclear weapons either. Honestly I'd say Venezuela probably stands as the closest comparison all things considered. The primary (only) reason for invasion/sanctions/etc... is their domestic policy. Whereas countries like Saudi Arabia are starving Yemen, bombing children on purpose, beheading citizens for bullshit, chopping up journalists and that's just whats solidly confirmed. Their treatment of women citizens and their immigrant workforce isn't very good either. That's all to say we've had the wrong policy on NK for decades imo and Trump trusting Kim inadvertently gets us better policy. EDIT: I said nuclear program, I meant for domestic energy production, though weaponization is a legitimate risk. pretty sure no one believes NK wants or needs nuclear power plants so no, there is no reason to allow that.
|
On May 26 2019 23:28 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2019 18:58 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Trump: I trust Kim Jong-Un, some people may be worried about him continuing with building weapons but not me because called Biden low-IQ so we have a lot in common.
You can really feel the adoration for a man that executes his opponents by sitting them in front of an anti aircraft gun. Yeah I saw that. It’s a whole new layer of stupid. Shoots missiles but ehh disses Biden so we cool.
This is only a tweet, but it's a perfect example of why he could lose in 2020. This is probably a top 5 worst Trump tweet. It's awful.
|
|
|
On May 27 2019 02:58 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2019 02:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 27 2019 02:27 Gorsameth wrote:On May 27 2019 02:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 27 2019 02:11 Gorsameth wrote:On May 27 2019 01:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 27 2019 01:45 Gorsameth wrote:On May 27 2019 01:11 GreenHorizons wrote:
Between the two of them (Trump and Kim Jong-Un) which is really the more predictable and trustworthy (human rights violations aside)? Is that even a question? Kim obviously. (presuming you're not being sarcastic) Any hope for sanctions to take the most potent offensive nuclear arsenal from someone so unpredictable, dishonest, and known to arm terrorists around the globe? I think that it's someone that also oversees a rather fascist police force, illegal domestic spying, and human rights violations around the globe (either directly or through funding/arming) that compares to the best of the worst along with a host of other issues should be taken into account as well. What is unpredictable about Kim? And all the rest isn't really relevant to the question who is more predictable or trustworthy. Kim is a terrible human being but his goals are clear, to maintain control of North Korea and his actions in light of that are predictable. And he isn't particularly trustworthy at all but basically every word out of Trump's mouth is a strait up lie so its a case of 100% is more then 90%. Do I think sanctions work? No, anyone who is willing and able to literally starve his people to death isn't going to care about any sanction you can place on him. Pressure on NK comes from pressure on China to stop protecting him. Since Kim doesn't have desires of world domination and the Korea's are on relatively good terms (particularly when you remove the US from the equation) would the better and more equitable policy be then to remove sanctions, allow him to have a nuclear program and provide aid while relations warm and you work to reduce anti-western sentiments and bad domestic policies? Not completely unlike our approach to countries like Israel or Saudi Arabia? I don't think giving Nukes to anyone is a good idea and giving everyone nukes doesn't make the world a better place. But yes I could see removing sanctions as a result of proper negotiations being an option, but I would do so in heavy coordination with SK, since they are the ones that actually live next to them. I wouldn't compare it to Israel or SA but more to what Obama attempted to do with Iran. Stop a country from getting nukes and working to try and remove the reason for those nukes in the first place by improving relations. (Nukes being the only real defence against the possibility of an American attack) Iran actually has desires for increased regional dominance whereas N. Korea doesn't. Granted more nuclear isn't great I didn't say nuclear weapons either. Honestly I'd say Venezuela probably stands as the closest comparison all things considered. The primary (only) reason for invasion/sanctions/etc... is their domestic policy. Whereas countries like Saudi Arabia are starving Yemen, bombing children on purpose, beheading citizens for bullshit, chopping up journalists and that's just whats solidly confirmed. Their treatment of women citizens and their immigrant workforce isn't very good either. That's all to say we've had the wrong policy on NK for decades imo and Trump trusting Kim inadvertently gets us better policy. EDIT: I said nuclear program, I meant for domestic energy production, though weaponization is a legitimate risk. pretty sure no one believes NK wants or needs nuclear power plants so no, there is no reason to allow that.
It appears Russia (and US officials) beg to differ. Russia specifically offered NK Nuclear power in exchange for not pursuing nuclear weapons (and ballistic missiles).
In exchange for North Korea dismantling its nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, Moscow offered the country a nuclear power plant.
The Russian offer, which intelligence officials became aware of in late 2018, marked a new attempt by Moscow to intervene in the high-stakes nuclear talks as it reasserts itself in a string of geopolitical flash points from the Middle East to South Asia to Latin America.
It’s unclear how President Trump will view Moscow’s proposal. For months, he has embraced an unorthodox approach to the negotiations, but his aides are likely to strenuously oppose any major Russian role in a final agreement.
As part of the deal, the Russian government would operate the plant and transfer all byproducts and waste back to Russia, reducing the risk that North Korea would use the power plant to build nuclear weapons, while providing the impoverished country a new energy source.
www.washingtonpost.com
I'd also point out of all countries, the US has been working to get a nuclear program running in Saudi Arabia (the government intentionally bombing/starving children, beheading women, and chopping up a journalist).
U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry has approved six secret authorizations by companies to sell nuclear power technology and assistance to Saudi Arabia, according to a copy of a document seen by Reuters on Wednesday.
Many U.S. lawmakers are concerned that sharing nuclear technology with Saudi Arabia could eventually lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman told CBS last year that the kingdom would develop nuclear weapons if its rival Iran did. In addition, the kingdom has occasionally pushed back against agreeing to U.S. standards that would block two paths to potentially making fissile material for nuclear weapons clandestinely: enriching uranium and reprocessing spent fuel.
www.reuters.com
|
|
|
|
|
On May 27 2019 03:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2019 02:58 Gorsameth wrote:On May 27 2019 02:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 27 2019 02:27 Gorsameth wrote:On May 27 2019 02:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 27 2019 02:11 Gorsameth wrote:On May 27 2019 01:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 27 2019 01:45 Gorsameth wrote:On May 27 2019 01:11 GreenHorizons wrote:
Between the two of them (Trump and Kim Jong-Un) which is really the more predictable and trustworthy (human rights violations aside)? Is that even a question? Kim obviously. (presuming you're not being sarcastic) Any hope for sanctions to take the most potent offensive nuclear arsenal from someone so unpredictable, dishonest, and known to arm terrorists around the globe? I think that it's someone that also oversees a rather fascist police force, illegal domestic spying, and human rights violations around the globe (either directly or through funding/arming) that compares to the best of the worst along with a host of other issues should be taken into account as well. What is unpredictable about Kim? And all the rest isn't really relevant to the question who is more predictable or trustworthy. Kim is a terrible human being but his goals are clear, to maintain control of North Korea and his actions in light of that are predictable. And he isn't particularly trustworthy at all but basically every word out of Trump's mouth is a strait up lie so its a case of 100% is more then 90%. Do I think sanctions work? No, anyone who is willing and able to literally starve his people to death isn't going to care about any sanction you can place on him. Pressure on NK comes from pressure on China to stop protecting him. Since Kim doesn't have desires of world domination and the Korea's are on relatively good terms (particularly when you remove the US from the equation) would the better and more equitable policy be then to remove sanctions, allow him to have a nuclear program and provide aid while relations warm and you work to reduce anti-western sentiments and bad domestic policies? Not completely unlike our approach to countries like Israel or Saudi Arabia? I don't think giving Nukes to anyone is a good idea and giving everyone nukes doesn't make the world a better place. But yes I could see removing sanctions as a result of proper negotiations being an option, but I would do so in heavy coordination with SK, since they are the ones that actually live next to them. I wouldn't compare it to Israel or SA but more to what Obama attempted to do with Iran. Stop a country from getting nukes and working to try and remove the reason for those nukes in the first place by improving relations. (Nukes being the only real defence against the possibility of an American attack) Iran actually has desires for increased regional dominance whereas N. Korea doesn't. Granted more nuclear isn't great I didn't say nuclear weapons either. Honestly I'd say Venezuela probably stands as the closest comparison all things considered. The primary (only) reason for invasion/sanctions/etc... is their domestic policy. Whereas countries like Saudi Arabia are starving Yemen, bombing children on purpose, beheading citizens for bullshit, chopping up journalists and that's just whats solidly confirmed. Their treatment of women citizens and their immigrant workforce isn't very good either. That's all to say we've had the wrong policy on NK for decades imo and Trump trusting Kim inadvertently gets us better policy. EDIT: I said nuclear program, I meant for domestic energy production, though weaponization is a legitimate risk. pretty sure no one believes NK wants or needs nuclear power plants so no, there is no reason to allow that. It appears Russia (and US officials) beg to differ. Russia specifically offered NK Nuclear power in exchange for not pursuing nuclear weapons (and ballistic missiles). Show nested quote +In exchange for North Korea dismantling its nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, Moscow offered the country a nuclear power plant.
The Russian offer, which intelligence officials became aware of in late 2018, marked a new attempt by Moscow to intervene in the high-stakes nuclear talks as it reasserts itself in a string of geopolitical flash points from the Middle East to South Asia to Latin America.
It’s unclear how President Trump will view Moscow’s proposal. For months, he has embraced an unorthodox approach to the negotiations, but his aides are likely to strenuously oppose any major Russian role in a final agreement.
As part of the deal, the Russian government would operate the plant and transfer all byproducts and waste back to Russia, reducing the risk that North Korea would use the power plant to build nuclear weapons, while providing the impoverished country a new energy source. www.washingtonpost.comI'd also point out of all countries, the US has been working to get a nuclear program running in Saudi Arabia (the government intentionally bombing/starving children, beheading women, and chopping up a journalist). Show nested quote +U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry has approved six secret authorizations by companies to sell nuclear power technology and assistance to Saudi Arabia, according to a copy of a document seen by Reuters on Wednesday.
Many U.S. lawmakers are concerned that sharing nuclear technology with Saudi Arabia could eventually lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman told CBS last year that the kingdom would develop nuclear weapons if its rival Iran did. In addition, the kingdom has occasionally pushed back against agreeing to U.S. standards that would block two paths to potentially making fissile material for nuclear weapons clandestinely: enriching uranium and reprocessing spent fuel. www.reuters.com Russia offering nuclear power is just them willing to give NK something they don't need to stop them from getting nukes and removing a possible cover for getting nukes. It doesn't mean NK needs nuclear power to meet their energy demands.
as for SA, I will bet their energy demand is significantly higher then NK's.
ps.
Your attempts to shoehorn in humanitarian issues into this once again shows that you don't care for these topics on their own, but just want to play your usual 'US supports bad regimes' spiel.
I don't give a shit about it. Yes the US does bad things, cry me a river.
|
On May 27 2019 03:52 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2019 03:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 27 2019 02:58 Gorsameth wrote:On May 27 2019 02:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 27 2019 02:27 Gorsameth wrote:On May 27 2019 02:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 27 2019 02:11 Gorsameth wrote:On May 27 2019 01:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 27 2019 01:45 Gorsameth wrote:On May 27 2019 01:11 GreenHorizons wrote:
Between the two of them (Trump and Kim Jong-Un) which is really the more predictable and trustworthy (human rights violations aside)? Is that even a question? Kim obviously. (presuming you're not being sarcastic) Any hope for sanctions to take the most potent offensive nuclear arsenal from someone so unpredictable, dishonest, and known to arm terrorists around the globe? I think that it's someone that also oversees a rather fascist police force, illegal domestic spying, and human rights violations around the globe (either directly or through funding/arming) that compares to the best of the worst along with a host of other issues should be taken into account as well. What is unpredictable about Kim? And all the rest isn't really relevant to the question who is more predictable or trustworthy. Kim is a terrible human being but his goals are clear, to maintain control of North Korea and his actions in light of that are predictable. And he isn't particularly trustworthy at all but basically every word out of Trump's mouth is a strait up lie so its a case of 100% is more then 90%. Do I think sanctions work? No, anyone who is willing and able to literally starve his people to death isn't going to care about any sanction you can place on him. Pressure on NK comes from pressure on China to stop protecting him. Since Kim doesn't have desires of world domination and the Korea's are on relatively good terms (particularly when you remove the US from the equation) would the better and more equitable policy be then to remove sanctions, allow him to have a nuclear program and provide aid while relations warm and you work to reduce anti-western sentiments and bad domestic policies? Not completely unlike our approach to countries like Israel or Saudi Arabia? I don't think giving Nukes to anyone is a good idea and giving everyone nukes doesn't make the world a better place. But yes I could see removing sanctions as a result of proper negotiations being an option, but I would do so in heavy coordination with SK, since they are the ones that actually live next to them. I wouldn't compare it to Israel or SA but more to what Obama attempted to do with Iran. Stop a country from getting nukes and working to try and remove the reason for those nukes in the first place by improving relations. (Nukes being the only real defence against the possibility of an American attack) Iran actually has desires for increased regional dominance whereas N. Korea doesn't. Granted more nuclear isn't great I didn't say nuclear weapons either. Honestly I'd say Venezuela probably stands as the closest comparison all things considered. The primary (only) reason for invasion/sanctions/etc... is their domestic policy. Whereas countries like Saudi Arabia are starving Yemen, bombing children on purpose, beheading citizens for bullshit, chopping up journalists and that's just whats solidly confirmed. Their treatment of women citizens and their immigrant workforce isn't very good either. That's all to say we've had the wrong policy on NK for decades imo and Trump trusting Kim inadvertently gets us better policy. EDIT: I said nuclear program, I meant for domestic energy production, though weaponization is a legitimate risk. pretty sure no one believes NK wants or needs nuclear power plants so no, there is no reason to allow that. It appears Russia (and US officials) beg to differ. Russia specifically offered NK Nuclear power in exchange for not pursuing nuclear weapons (and ballistic missiles). In exchange for North Korea dismantling its nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, Moscow offered the country a nuclear power plant.
The Russian offer, which intelligence officials became aware of in late 2018, marked a new attempt by Moscow to intervene in the high-stakes nuclear talks as it reasserts itself in a string of geopolitical flash points from the Middle East to South Asia to Latin America.
It’s unclear how President Trump will view Moscow’s proposal. For months, he has embraced an unorthodox approach to the negotiations, but his aides are likely to strenuously oppose any major Russian role in a final agreement.
As part of the deal, the Russian government would operate the plant and transfer all byproducts and waste back to Russia, reducing the risk that North Korea would use the power plant to build nuclear weapons, while providing the impoverished country a new energy source. www.washingtonpost.comI'd also point out of all countries, the US has been working to get a nuclear program running in Saudi Arabia (the government intentionally bombing/starving children, beheading women, and chopping up a journalist). U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry has approved six secret authorizations by companies to sell nuclear power technology and assistance to Saudi Arabia, according to a copy of a document seen by Reuters on Wednesday.
Many U.S. lawmakers are concerned that sharing nuclear technology with Saudi Arabia could eventually lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman told CBS last year that the kingdom would develop nuclear weapons if its rival Iran did. In addition, the kingdom has occasionally pushed back against agreeing to U.S. standards that would block two paths to potentially making fissile material for nuclear weapons clandestinely: enriching uranium and reprocessing spent fuel. www.reuters.com Russia offering nuclear power is just them willing to give NK something they don't need to stop them from getting nukes and removing a possible cover for getting nukes. It doesn't mean NK needs nuclear power to meet their energy demands. as for SA, I will bet their energy demand is significantly higher then NK's.
I mean, "their energy demands" are allegedly not met (and should go up rapidly with their quality of life without sanctions and with international aid) and nuclear is one of the preferred bridge energies as opposed to coal or natural gas. Alternatively if they do have sufficient energy and don't need nuclear it could give them an export (energy) which could help bring them into the international fold.
Which I presume would be the reasoning for SA considering they have ample access to energy without nuclear.
ps.
Your attempts to shoehorn in humanitarian issues into this once again shows that you don't care for these topics on their own, but just want to play your usual 'US supports bad regimes' spiel.
I don't give a shit about it. Yes the US does bad things, cry me a river.
This seems unnecessary and a little cruel for those suffering as a result.
|
United States44046 Posts
On May 27 2019 03:09 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2019 03:03 Introvert wrote:On May 26 2019 23:28 Danglars wrote:On May 26 2019 18:58 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Trump: I trust Kim Jong-Un, some people may be worried about him continuing with building weapons but not me because called Biden low-IQ so we have a lot in common. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1132459370816708608You can really feel the adoration for a man that executes his opponents by sitting them in front of an anti aircraft gun. Yeah I saw that. It’s a whole new layer of stupid. Shoots missiles but ehh disses Biden so we cool. This is only a tweet, but it's a perfect example of why he could lose in 2020. This is probably a top 5 worst Trump tweet. It's awful. I can't stand him, and some of that is from before he was president I never believed that he was a great businessman. But I didn't hate him, I thought he was entertaining. But now I just can't even believe he is smart. His tweeting is just so bad. If Trump had never tweeted I think I would have a much higher opinion of him. It is like the old saying about staying quiet instead of opening your mouth and removing all doubt.
The man has always been very clearly an idiot. Hell, there’s a pretty basic rule of thumb to tell whether someone is an idiot. Idiots tell people that they’re smart. Smart people get told by people that they’re smart.
If it’s clearly apparent from your actions that you’re smart people will know without you telling them. If you have to tell them then it’s because you understand that they wouldn’t have been able to tell the difference between you and an idiot.
|
|
|
On May 27 2019 01:05 Ben... wrote:
A thing to note is they deleted and reposted that tweet because he spelled Biden's last name wrong (he referred to Biden originally as "Swampman Joe Bidan").
This behaviour is really not helping Trump's argument for being a "stable genius". I've even been seeing some Republicans on Twitter seem incredulous at that tweet. He's going against the advice of his own people to believe Kim Jong-un. He did the same thing with Putin and other "strongman" leaders.
It's pretty disconcerting to have the leader of one of the most powerful countries in the world act like this.
The dude is literally in the mid-stages of dementia. How the hell do some people still not see this? And why are people not freaked the fuck out by it?
"The Washington Post photographer Jabin Botsford took a close-up picture of Trump's notes, which said "Dems have no achomlishments."
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-rose-garden-speech-notes-spelling-error-2019-5
"President Donald Trump’s recent confusion with words and facts, including about his own father, could be signs of pre-dementia and deteriorating cognitive skills, some mental health experts warn.
“The ‘Tim Apple’ episode a few weeks ago, his calling Venezuela a company, and then yesterday, confusing his grandfather’s birthplace with his father’s, mispronouncing ‘oranges’ for ‘origins,’ and stating out of the blue, ‘I’m very normal,’” recited Bandy Lee, a professor of psychiatry at Yale University who has been waving red flags about Trump’s mental state for years. “There is no question he needs an examination.”
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-mental-health-pre-dementia_n_5ca51ea2e4b0409b0ec32806
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
