|
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 25 2018 01:41 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2018 01:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 25 2018 00:15 mozoku wrote:
Man, it's pretty amazing how much you guys are willing to set aside skepticism in your rush to Trump-bash. I might as well be reading a Fox News comment section during the Obama administration.
If NK made it clear they have no intention of denuclearizing (or making any concessions), then it would be a bad idea to take the summit. It's as simple as that.
Talks aren't an end unto themselves, and come with the implicit public expectation that the US should make concessions (which it should not, as that rewards states nuclearizing in a strategic attempt to gain negotiation leverage).
China was also ostensibly using these talks as leverage in trade negotiations with the US. Delaying the summit takes that away from China for trade discussions, and the summit can potentially be rescheduled later on.
I don't claim to know if this is the right move or not, but it's certainly not clear cut.
The "discussion" on this page is literally no more than an assumption Trump is wrong coupled with lots of insults at the administration. Setting aside the decision.. The execution was pretty shit. The execution looks like shit. The decision itself could be a very good thing or a very bad thing. NK has used promises of not pursuing nuclear weapons, and afterwards, disarming their nuclear weapon capabilities to gain aid and normalization and less sanctions. They violated these promises in the space of years. If NK came in with preconditions and Trump did act petulantly on the insult of Pence, it’s bad. If the Trump administration has reason to believe the negotiations were just another con to gain time for weapons development, money, normalization, and relief from sanctions, then I like this move. The treasury department has been blacklisting (mostly Chinese) companies that do business with North Korea. Sanctions could be stepped up further in all likelihood. Like mozoku was saying, it’s not clear cut, although some partisans really wish that it were true. I hope more Trump officials and Trump himself explain further in the coming weeks and months.
Yeah. It was North Korea that violated the agreements. Yep sirree. That's how everyone seems to remember it for some reason. Those crazy North Koreans dropped out of the agreement for no reason, and then started producing weapons again.
Soon after the agreement was signed, U.S. Congress control changed to the Republican Party, who did not support the agreement. Some Republican Senators were strongly against the agreement, regarding it as appeasement. Initially, U.S. Department of Defense emergency funds not under Congress' control were used to fund the transitional oil supplies under the agreement, together with international funding. From 1996 Congress provided funding, though not always sufficient amounts. Consequently, some of the agreed transitional oil supplies were delivered late. KEDO's first director, Stephen Bosworth, later commented "The Agreed Framework was a political orphan within two weeks after its signature".
Some analysts believe North Korea agreed to the freeze primarily because of the U.S. agreement to phase out economic sanctions that had been in place since the Korean War. But because of congressional opposition, the U.S. failed to deliver on this part of the agreement.
Source
Kind of like how foreign investments dropped for Iran's bank when Trump started his agreement-violating Twitter threats during 2017 (which led to them switching to the Euro instead of Dollar a few months ago).
And then later the US dropped out of the agreement.
And those poor Syrians facing malnutrition and unemployement fighting against the oppressor Assad. Because of course Syria was supporting terrorists and was "destabilizing" Iraq back in 2004 when the sanctions first began. And those sanctions had nothing to do with the malnutrition and unemployment, of course, in that desert of a country which relied on trade to get enough grain. And there was no massive increase of US propaganda starting in 2003 aimed the Middle East, and even if there was it had nothing to do with the problems!
It hurts when the global economic superpower starts fucking with your economy -- people on the receiving end tend to notice this, but might not be able to assign blame appropriately.
On and on it goes. Lies upon lies. I really wonder how all this will remembered in 20 years. One can only hope that history won't be broadcasted into people's brains by US media anymore.
|
I won't be surprised if we see a "nevermind" out of Trump by the end of today
|
On May 25 2018 01:55 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2018 01:41 Danglars wrote:On May 25 2018 01:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 25 2018 00:15 mozoku wrote:
Man, it's pretty amazing how much you guys are willing to set aside skepticism in your rush to Trump-bash. I might as well be reading a Fox News comment section during the Obama administration.
If NK made it clear they have no intention of denuclearizing (or making any concessions), then it would be a bad idea to take the summit. It's as simple as that.
Talks aren't an end unto themselves, and come with the implicit public expectation that the US should make concessions (which it should not, as that rewards states nuclearizing in a strategic attempt to gain negotiation leverage).
China was also ostensibly using these talks as leverage in trade negotiations with the US. Delaying the summit takes that away from China for trade discussions, and the summit can potentially be rescheduled later on.
I don't claim to know if this is the right move or not, but it's certainly not clear cut.
The "discussion" on this page is literally no more than an assumption Trump is wrong coupled with lots of insults at the administration. Setting aside the decision.. The execution was pretty shit. The execution looks like shit. The decision itself could be a very good thing or a very bad thing. NK has used promises of not pursuing nuclear weapons, and afterwards, disarming their nuclear weapon capabilities to gain aid and normalization and less sanctions. They violated these promises in the space of years. If NK came in with preconditions and Trump did act petulantly on the insult of Pence, it’s bad. If the Trump administration has reason to believe the negotiations were just another con to gain time for weapons development, money, normalization, and relief from sanctions, then I like this move. The treasury department has been blacklisting (mostly Chinese) companies that do business with North Korea. Sanctions could be stepped up further in all likelihood. Like mozoku was saying, it’s not clear cut, although some partisans really wish that it were true. I hope more Trump officials and Trump himself explain further in the coming weeks and months. Yeah. It was North Korea that violated the agreements. Yep sirree. That's how everyone seems to remember it for some reason. Those crazy North Koreans dropped out of the agreement for no reason, and then started producing weapons again. Show nested quote +Soon after the agreement was signed, U.S. Congress control changed to the Republican Party, who did not support the agreement. Some Republican Senators were strongly against the agreement, regarding it as appeasement. Initially, U.S. Department of Defense emergency funds not under Congress' control were used to fund the transitional oil supplies under the agreement, together with international funding. From 1996 Congress provided funding, though not always sufficient amounts. Consequently, some of the agreed transitional oil supplies were delivered late. KEDO's first director, Stephen Bosworth, later commented "The Agreed Framework was a political orphan within two weeks after its signature".
Some analysts believe North Korea agreed to the freeze primarily because of the U.S. agreement to phase out economic sanctions that had been in place since the Korean War. But because of congressional opposition, the U.S. failed to deliver on this part of the agreement. SourceKind of like how foreign investments dropped for Iran's bank when Trump started his agreement-violating Twitter threats during 2017 (which led to them switching to the Euro instead of Dollar a few months ago). And then later the US dropped out of the agreement. And those poor Syrians facing malnutrition and unemployement fighting against the oppressor Assad. Because of course Syria was supporting terrorists and was "destabilizing" Iraq back in 2004 when the sanctions first began. And those sanctions had nothing to do with the malnutrition and unemployment, of course, in that desert of a country which relied on trade to get enough grain. And there was no massive increase of US propaganda starting in 2003 aimed the Middle East, and even if there was it had nothing to do with the problems! It hurts when the global economic superpower starts fucking with your economy -- people on the receiving end tend to notice this, but might not be able to assign blame appropriately. On and on it goes. Lies upon lies. I really wonder how all this will remembered in 20 years.
Probably one of, if not the, most confusing times in American history.
|
On May 25 2018 01:57 Mohdoo wrote:
I won't be surprised if we see a "nevermind" out of Trump by the end of today He won't. He cares too much about his image and there is no way he can walk back to the table after calling it quits without looking like a weak shit.
That's why NK was only threatening to walk away instead of actually cancelling it. It left them room to move. Trump doesn't get that subtle difference.
|
On May 25 2018 02:03 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2018 01:55 a_flayer wrote:On May 25 2018 01:41 Danglars wrote:On May 25 2018 01:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 25 2018 00:15 mozoku wrote:
Man, it's pretty amazing how much you guys are willing to set aside skepticism in your rush to Trump-bash. I might as well be reading a Fox News comment section during the Obama administration.
If NK made it clear they have no intention of denuclearizing (or making any concessions), then it would be a bad idea to take the summit. It's as simple as that.
Talks aren't an end unto themselves, and come with the implicit public expectation that the US should make concessions (which it should not, as that rewards states nuclearizing in a strategic attempt to gain negotiation leverage).
China was also ostensibly using these talks as leverage in trade negotiations with the US. Delaying the summit takes that away from China for trade discussions, and the summit can potentially be rescheduled later on.
I don't claim to know if this is the right move or not, but it's certainly not clear cut.
The "discussion" on this page is literally no more than an assumption Trump is wrong coupled with lots of insults at the administration. Setting aside the decision.. The execution was pretty shit. The execution looks like shit. The decision itself could be a very good thing or a very bad thing. NK has used promises of not pursuing nuclear weapons, and afterwards, disarming their nuclear weapon capabilities to gain aid and normalization and less sanctions. They violated these promises in the space of years. If NK came in with preconditions and Trump did act petulantly on the insult of Pence, it’s bad. If the Trump administration has reason to believe the negotiations were just another con to gain time for weapons development, money, normalization, and relief from sanctions, then I like this move. The treasury department has been blacklisting (mostly Chinese) companies that do business with North Korea. Sanctions could be stepped up further in all likelihood. Like mozoku was saying, it’s not clear cut, although some partisans really wish that it were true. I hope more Trump officials and Trump himself explain further in the coming weeks and months. Yeah. It was North Korea that violated the agreements. Yep sirree. That's how everyone seems to remember it for some reason. Those crazy North Koreans dropped out of the agreement for no reason, and then started producing weapons again. Soon after the agreement was signed, U.S. Congress control changed to the Republican Party, who did not support the agreement. Some Republican Senators were strongly against the agreement, regarding it as appeasement. Initially, U.S. Department of Defense emergency funds not under Congress' control were used to fund the transitional oil supplies under the agreement, together with international funding. From 1996 Congress provided funding, though not always sufficient amounts. Consequently, some of the agreed transitional oil supplies were delivered late. KEDO's first director, Stephen Bosworth, later commented "The Agreed Framework was a political orphan within two weeks after its signature".
Some analysts believe North Korea agreed to the freeze primarily because of the U.S. agreement to phase out economic sanctions that had been in place since the Korean War. But because of congressional opposition, the U.S. failed to deliver on this part of the agreement. SourceKind of like how foreign investments dropped for Iran's bank when Trump started his agreement-violating Twitter threats during 2017 (which led to them switching to the Euro instead of Dollar a few months ago). And then later the US dropped out of the agreement. And those poor Syrians facing malnutrition and unemployement fighting against the oppressor Assad. Because of course Syria was supporting terrorists and was "destabilizing" Iraq back in 2004 when the sanctions first began. And those sanctions had nothing to do with the malnutrition and unemployment, of course, in that desert of a country which relied on trade to get enough grain. And there was no massive increase of US propaganda starting in 2003 aimed the Middle East, and even if there was it had nothing to do with the problems! It hurts when the global economic superpower starts fucking with your economy -- people on the receiving end tend to notice this, but might not be able to assign blame appropriately. On and on it goes. Lies upon lies. I really wonder how all this will remembered in 20 years. Probably one of, if not the, most confusing times in American history.
Yes. I think the narrative from this era will be how America at large realized there was a set amount of bandwidth of information and events we can all deal with at a given time, and our media had completely maxed that out. And congress at its most useless in modern history.
On May 25 2018 02:03 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2018 01:57 Mohdoo wrote:
I won't be surprised if we see a "nevermind" out of Trump by the end of today He won't. He cares to much about his image and there is no way he can walk back to the table after calling it quits without looking like a weak shit. That's why NK was only threatening to walk away instead of actually cancelling it. It left them room to move. Trump doesn't get that subtle difference.
From what is coming out of the reporters in NK is the goverment there was caught completely off guard as well. I don't think there is any coming back for Trump. The question is if SK and NK still meet with China being the mediator. If that happens, China will in a great position make a play to erode our relationship with SK.
|
On May 25 2018 02:03 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2018 01:55 a_flayer wrote:On May 25 2018 01:41 Danglars wrote:On May 25 2018 01:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 25 2018 00:15 mozoku wrote:
Man, it's pretty amazing how much you guys are willing to set aside skepticism in your rush to Trump-bash. I might as well be reading a Fox News comment section during the Obama administration.
If NK made it clear they have no intention of denuclearizing (or making any concessions), then it would be a bad idea to take the summit. It's as simple as that.
Talks aren't an end unto themselves, and come with the implicit public expectation that the US should make concessions (which it should not, as that rewards states nuclearizing in a strategic attempt to gain negotiation leverage).
China was also ostensibly using these talks as leverage in trade negotiations with the US. Delaying the summit takes that away from China for trade discussions, and the summit can potentially be rescheduled later on.
I don't claim to know if this is the right move or not, but it's certainly not clear cut.
The "discussion" on this page is literally no more than an assumption Trump is wrong coupled with lots of insults at the administration. Setting aside the decision.. The execution was pretty shit. The execution looks like shit. The decision itself could be a very good thing or a very bad thing. NK has used promises of not pursuing nuclear weapons, and afterwards, disarming their nuclear weapon capabilities to gain aid and normalization and less sanctions. They violated these promises in the space of years. If NK came in with preconditions and Trump did act petulantly on the insult of Pence, it’s bad. If the Trump administration has reason to believe the negotiations were just another con to gain time for weapons development, money, normalization, and relief from sanctions, then I like this move. The treasury department has been blacklisting (mostly Chinese) companies that do business with North Korea. Sanctions could be stepped up further in all likelihood. Like mozoku was saying, it’s not clear cut, although some partisans really wish that it were true. I hope more Trump officials and Trump himself explain further in the coming weeks and months. Yeah. It was North Korea that violated the agreements. Yep sirree. That's how everyone seems to remember it for some reason. Those crazy North Koreans dropped out of the agreement for no reason, and then started producing weapons again. Soon after the agreement was signed, U.S. Congress control changed to the Republican Party, who did not support the agreement. Some Republican Senators were strongly against the agreement, regarding it as appeasement. Initially, U.S. Department of Defense emergency funds not under Congress' control were used to fund the transitional oil supplies under the agreement, together with international funding. From 1996 Congress provided funding, though not always sufficient amounts. Consequently, some of the agreed transitional oil supplies were delivered late. KEDO's first director, Stephen Bosworth, later commented "The Agreed Framework was a political orphan within two weeks after its signature".
Some analysts believe North Korea agreed to the freeze primarily because of the U.S. agreement to phase out economic sanctions that had been in place since the Korean War. But because of congressional opposition, the U.S. failed to deliver on this part of the agreement. SourceKind of like how foreign investments dropped for Iran's bank when Trump started his agreement-violating Twitter threats during 2017 (which led to them switching to the Euro instead of Dollar a few months ago). And then later the US dropped out of the agreement. And those poor Syrians facing malnutrition and unemployement fighting against the oppressor Assad. Because of course Syria was supporting terrorists and was "destabilizing" Iraq back in 2004 when the sanctions first began. And those sanctions had nothing to do with the malnutrition and unemployment, of course, in that desert of a country which relied on trade to get enough grain. And there was no massive increase of US propaganda starting in 2003 aimed the Middle East, and even if there was it had nothing to do with the problems! It hurts when the global economic superpower starts fucking with your economy -- people on the receiving end tend to notice this, but might not be able to assign blame appropriately. On and on it goes. Lies upon lies. I really wonder how all this will remembered in 20 years. Probably one of, if not the, most confusing times in American history.
Bullshit. All blame will be assigned on the foreigners. Russians, North Koreans, Iranians, Muslims, whatever.
Anyone who says otherwise (aka blames the US) can patriotically stay in the locker room (aka not appear on media anymore).
|
I love that this happened and the House is gearing up for a free for all in immigration in June. The 2018 midterm is going to be dramatic.
|
On May 25 2018 02:10 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2018 02:03 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 25 2018 01:55 a_flayer wrote:On May 25 2018 01:41 Danglars wrote:On May 25 2018 01:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 25 2018 00:15 mozoku wrote:
Man, it's pretty amazing how much you guys are willing to set aside skepticism in your rush to Trump-bash. I might as well be reading a Fox News comment section during the Obama administration.
If NK made it clear they have no intention of denuclearizing (or making any concessions), then it would be a bad idea to take the summit. It's as simple as that.
Talks aren't an end unto themselves, and come with the implicit public expectation that the US should make concessions (which it should not, as that rewards states nuclearizing in a strategic attempt to gain negotiation leverage).
China was also ostensibly using these talks as leverage in trade negotiations with the US. Delaying the summit takes that away from China for trade discussions, and the summit can potentially be rescheduled later on.
I don't claim to know if this is the right move or not, but it's certainly not clear cut.
The "discussion" on this page is literally no more than an assumption Trump is wrong coupled with lots of insults at the administration. Setting aside the decision.. The execution was pretty shit. The execution looks like shit. The decision itself could be a very good thing or a very bad thing. NK has used promises of not pursuing nuclear weapons, and afterwards, disarming their nuclear weapon capabilities to gain aid and normalization and less sanctions. They violated these promises in the space of years. If NK came in with preconditions and Trump did act petulantly on the insult of Pence, it’s bad. If the Trump administration has reason to believe the negotiations were just another con to gain time for weapons development, money, normalization, and relief from sanctions, then I like this move. The treasury department has been blacklisting (mostly Chinese) companies that do business with North Korea. Sanctions could be stepped up further in all likelihood. Like mozoku was saying, it’s not clear cut, although some partisans really wish that it were true. I hope more Trump officials and Trump himself explain further in the coming weeks and months. Yeah. It was North Korea that violated the agreements. Yep sirree. That's how everyone seems to remember it for some reason. Those crazy North Koreans dropped out of the agreement for no reason, and then started producing weapons again. Soon after the agreement was signed, U.S. Congress control changed to the Republican Party, who did not support the agreement. Some Republican Senators were strongly against the agreement, regarding it as appeasement. Initially, U.S. Department of Defense emergency funds not under Congress' control were used to fund the transitional oil supplies under the agreement, together with international funding. From 1996 Congress provided funding, though not always sufficient amounts. Consequently, some of the agreed transitional oil supplies were delivered late. KEDO's first director, Stephen Bosworth, later commented "The Agreed Framework was a political orphan within two weeks after its signature".
Some analysts believe North Korea agreed to the freeze primarily because of the U.S. agreement to phase out economic sanctions that had been in place since the Korean War. But because of congressional opposition, the U.S. failed to deliver on this part of the agreement. SourceKind of like how foreign investments dropped for Iran's bank when Trump started his agreement-violating Twitter threats during 2017 (which led to them switching to the Euro instead of Dollar a few months ago). And then later the US dropped out of the agreement. And those poor Syrians facing malnutrition and unemployement fighting against the oppressor Assad. Because of course Syria was supporting terrorists and was "destabilizing" Iraq back in 2004 when the sanctions first began. And those sanctions had nothing to do with the malnutrition and unemployment, of course, in that desert of a country which relied on trade to get enough grain. And there was no massive increase of US propaganda starting in 2003 aimed the Middle East, and even if there was it had nothing to do with the problems! It hurts when the global economic superpower starts fucking with your economy -- people on the receiving end tend to notice this, but might not be able to assign blame appropriately. On and on it goes. Lies upon lies. I really wonder how all this will remembered in 20 years. Probably one of, if not the, most confusing times in American history. Bullshit. All blame will be assigned on the foreigners. Russians, North Koreans, Iranians, Muslims, whatever. Anyone who says otherwise (aka blames the US) can patriotically stay in the locker room (aka not appear on media anymore).
I need you to break this down for me. I didn't place in the national trials of mental gymnastics, so I am not following.
|
On May 25 2018 02:31 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2018 02:10 a_flayer wrote:On May 25 2018 02:03 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 25 2018 01:55 a_flayer wrote:On May 25 2018 01:41 Danglars wrote:On May 25 2018 01:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 25 2018 00:15 mozoku wrote:
Man, it's pretty amazing how much you guys are willing to set aside skepticism in your rush to Trump-bash. I might as well be reading a Fox News comment section during the Obama administration.
If NK made it clear they have no intention of denuclearizing (or making any concessions), then it would be a bad idea to take the summit. It's as simple as that.
Talks aren't an end unto themselves, and come with the implicit public expectation that the US should make concessions (which it should not, as that rewards states nuclearizing in a strategic attempt to gain negotiation leverage).
China was also ostensibly using these talks as leverage in trade negotiations with the US. Delaying the summit takes that away from China for trade discussions, and the summit can potentially be rescheduled later on.
I don't claim to know if this is the right move or not, but it's certainly not clear cut.
The "discussion" on this page is literally no more than an assumption Trump is wrong coupled with lots of insults at the administration. Setting aside the decision.. The execution was pretty shit. The execution looks like shit. The decision itself could be a very good thing or a very bad thing. NK has used promises of not pursuing nuclear weapons, and afterwards, disarming their nuclear weapon capabilities to gain aid and normalization and less sanctions. They violated these promises in the space of years. If NK came in with preconditions and Trump did act petulantly on the insult of Pence, it’s bad. If the Trump administration has reason to believe the negotiations were just another con to gain time for weapons development, money, normalization, and relief from sanctions, then I like this move. The treasury department has been blacklisting (mostly Chinese) companies that do business with North Korea. Sanctions could be stepped up further in all likelihood. Like mozoku was saying, it’s not clear cut, although some partisans really wish that it were true. I hope more Trump officials and Trump himself explain further in the coming weeks and months. Yeah. It was North Korea that violated the agreements. Yep sirree. That's how everyone seems to remember it for some reason. Those crazy North Koreans dropped out of the agreement for no reason, and then started producing weapons again. Soon after the agreement was signed, U.S. Congress control changed to the Republican Party, who did not support the agreement. Some Republican Senators were strongly against the agreement, regarding it as appeasement. Initially, U.S. Department of Defense emergency funds not under Congress' control were used to fund the transitional oil supplies under the agreement, together with international funding. From 1996 Congress provided funding, though not always sufficient amounts. Consequently, some of the agreed transitional oil supplies were delivered late. KEDO's first director, Stephen Bosworth, later commented "The Agreed Framework was a political orphan within two weeks after its signature".
Some analysts believe North Korea agreed to the freeze primarily because of the U.S. agreement to phase out economic sanctions that had been in place since the Korean War. But because of congressional opposition, the U.S. failed to deliver on this part of the agreement. SourceKind of like how foreign investments dropped for Iran's bank when Trump started his agreement-violating Twitter threats during 2017 (which led to them switching to the Euro instead of Dollar a few months ago). And then later the US dropped out of the agreement. And those poor Syrians facing malnutrition and unemployement fighting against the oppressor Assad. Because of course Syria was supporting terrorists and was "destabilizing" Iraq back in 2004 when the sanctions first began. And those sanctions had nothing to do with the malnutrition and unemployment, of course, in that desert of a country which relied on trade to get enough grain. And there was no massive increase of US propaganda starting in 2003 aimed the Middle East, and even if there was it had nothing to do with the problems! It hurts when the global economic superpower starts fucking with your economy -- people on the receiving end tend to notice this, but might not be able to assign blame appropriately. On and on it goes. Lies upon lies. I really wonder how all this will remembered in 20 years. Probably one of, if not the, most confusing times in American history. Bullshit. All blame will be assigned on the foreigners. Russians, North Koreans, Iranians, Muslims, whatever. Anyone who says otherwise (aka blames the US) can patriotically stay in the locker room (aka not appear on media anymore). I need you to break this down for me. I didn't place in the national trials of mental gymnastics, so I am not following.
He is making a joke. The NFL thing about respecting the flag. We can't blame our own country for fuck ups, or we will be removed from cable news.
|
And you will only be allowed to blame Trump if you agree that it was Russia who elected him.
Seriously, how do you not see this pattern with North Korea, and other "problem countries"? It is always the US who surreptitiously begins undermining stability and messing around with shit. The US blamed Saddam Hussein for supporting terrorism as well, just like they did with Syria. That shit has consequences when the US produces all that grain for the world.
Feeding the world American style, Col. Sanders has an empire behind his smile. With a mission and a cheque book promising aid, he talked of control and the terrible drought and the way that the West would bail them out. Then he stopped smiling and talked conditions. Of mutual aid, of American wishes. Sending in aid with sewn on strings. If they won't buy arms, then it's pulled back in (or you know, whatever else the US wants).
And then 20 years later, it's always "well, that country left that agreement, such country violated sanctions there" or "they didn't want to talk to us anymore." No one's gonna remember Bolton spouting off about Libya on Fox News, just like no one remembers Congress undermining previous agreements. It's going to be "North Korea withdrew from the meeting, and the US government took a hard stance against such frivolous actions. Cause we're strong burly men! Ooorah! Oh yeah and Trump the Russian - certainly not American - president was a douche during that time!"
|
I wonder which country this administration will instigate a full war with first. Seems like they are gearing up for either Iran or North Korea. John Bolton is jizzing himself.
|
On May 25 2018 00:15 mozoku wrote:
Man, it's pretty amazing how much you guys are willing to set aside skepticism in your rush to Trump-bash. I might as well be reading a Fox News comment section during the Obama administration.
If NK made it clear they have no intention of denuclearizing (or making any concessions), then it would be a bad idea to take the summit. It's as simple as that.
Talks aren't an end unto themselves, and come with the implicit public expectation that the US should make concessions (which it should not, as that rewards states nuclearizing in a strategic attempt to gain negotiation leverage).
China was also ostensibly using these talks as leverage in trade negotiations with the US. Delaying the summit takes that away from China for trade discussions, and the summit can potentially be rescheduled later on.
I don't claim to know if this is the right move or not, but it's certainly not clear cut.
The "discussion" on this page is literally no more than an assumption Trump is wrong coupled with lots of insults at the administration.
Was it not the right wing press saying Donald Trump deserved the nobel peace prize for his 'achievements' on the Korean peninsula?
Trump deserves his bashing.
On May 25 2018 03:01 Starlightsun wrote:
I wonder which country this administration will instigate a full war with first. Seems like they are gearing up for either Iran or North Korea. John Bolton is jizzing himself.
I don't know. They both sound like bad propositions.
North Korea might be the cheaper option though. It's a smaller country that can be taken down faster, and while nobody will approve the method... heck, it'll be hard to complain about the result in the aftermath. Sure, Seoul will probably be half a crater and millions of Koreans will be dead, but one of the worst regimes in the world will have fallen.
Bonus; there'll likely be less long-term consequences a la Iraq. I don't think destabilising the Middle East AGAIN is a particularly stellar plan.
|
Can we already impeach Trump and replace him with some Obama-like president for the sake of places like Europe? This guy is just walking trouble.
|
On May 25 2018 03:17 sc-darkness wrote:
Can we already impeach Trump and replace him with some Obama-like president for the sake of places like Europe? This guy is just walking trouble.
legally, yes we can. politically, no we can't, the votes aren't there for it.
|
On May 25 2018 03:11 iamthedave wrote:
I don't know. They both sound like bad propositions.
North Korea might be the cheaper option though. It's a smaller country that can be taken down faster, and while nobody will approve the method... heck, it'll be hard to complain about the result in the aftermath. Sure, Seoul will probably be half a crater and millions of Koreans will be dead, but one of the worst regimes in the world will have fallen.
Bonus; there'll likely be less long-term consequences a la Iraq. I don't think destabilising the Middle East AGAIN is a particularly stellar plan.
On the Iran side don't forget scoring good boy points from Israel. That always makes up for any amount of death and suffering.
|
On May 25 2018 03:17 sc-darkness wrote:
Can we already impeach Trump and replace him with some Obama-like president for the sake of places like Europe? This guy is just walking trouble.
If he is removed from office, we just get Pence. If we remove both of them, we get Paul Ryan.
|
On May 25 2018 03:31 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2018 03:17 sc-darkness wrote:
Can we already impeach Trump and replace him with some Obama-like president for the sake of places like Europe? This guy is just walking trouble. If he is removed from office, we just get Pence. If we remove both of them, we get Paul Ryan.
isn't there a way for a new election though? E.g. if prime minister resigns in Europe, you usually get a new general election.
|
On May 25 2018 03:43 sc-darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2018 03:31 Plansix wrote:On May 25 2018 03:17 sc-darkness wrote:
Can we already impeach Trump and replace him with some Obama-like president for the sake of places like Europe? This guy is just walking trouble. If he is removed from office, we just get Pence. If we remove both of them, we get Paul Ryan. isn't there a way for a new election though? E.g. if prime minister resigns in Europe, you usually get a new general election.
No. We hold elections every 4 years for the office of president. No exceptions. We can hold special elections for senators, house members and other government roles, but not the presidency.
|
On May 25 2018 03:17 sc-darkness wrote:
Can we already impeach Trump and replace him with some Obama-like president for the sake of places like Europe? This guy is just walking trouble.
Not enough people agree with you. I’d focus your energies on fielding a good candidate for 2020. I didn’t like Obama’s presidency, but he got replaced by a guy stiffly opposed in eight years—even partially undoing a couple major things I disliked. You can try for doing the same in four years. It’s totally possible.
|
On May 25 2018 03:29 Starlightsun wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2018 03:11 iamthedave wrote:
I don't know. They both sound like bad propositions.
North Korea might be the cheaper option though. It's a smaller country that can be taken down faster, and while nobody will approve the method... heck, it'll be hard to complain about the result in the aftermath. Sure, Seoul will probably be half a crater and millions of Koreans will be dead, but one of the worst regimes in the world will have fallen.
Bonus; there'll likely be less long-term consequences a la Iraq. I don't think destabilising the Middle East AGAIN is a particularly stellar plan. On the Iran side don't forget scoring good boy points from Israel. That always makes up for any amount of death and suffering.
Eh. Israel isn't dropping the US as an ally any time soon. Almost everyone else doesn't like them at this point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
