|
mediadave posted:https://twitter.com/Dalzell60/status/920997151924252672  what could possibly go wrong?
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 14:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 16:58 |
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:
So is now a good time to panic
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
mediadave posted:https://twitter.com/Dalzell60/status/920997151924252672 Who the gently caress is this guy?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 14:40
|
|
|
some nerd in some think tank thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 14:41
|
|
|
"limited strike"
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
Stairmaster posted:some nerd in some think tank thing. Admittedly this is fifth hand reporting (Michael D. Swaine- reliable colleague - senior House republicans - McMaster etc - Trump)
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
Tim Whatley posted:Who the gently caress is this guy? According to his Wikipedia profile: quote:Michael Dalzell Swaine (born March 11, 1951) is an expert in China and East Asian security studies and a Senior Associate in the Asia Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Prior to joining the Carnegie Endowment as co-director of the China Program in 2001, Swaine worked for 12 years at the RAND Corporation, where he was appointed as the first recipient of the RAND Center for Asia-Pacific Policy Chair in Northeast Asian Security.[1]
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 14:50
|
|
|
I wouldn't really trust information like this, but it also wouldn't surprise me if Trump and some of the people around him are deluded enough to believe they can treat NK like a dumping ground for US ordnance without consequence. I've been saying all year that the biggest threat isn't a planned invasion, it's some kind of limited action that escalates into an actual war.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 14:51
|
|
|
Follow up: https://twitter.com/Dalzell60/status/921010457875566592 
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
Yeah gently caress that guy and gently caress twitter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 15:03
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I wouldn't really trust information like this, but it also wouldn't surprise me if Trump and some of the people around him are deluded enough to believe they can treat NK like a dumping ground for US ordnance without consequence. I've been saying all year that the biggest threat isn't a planned invasion, it's some kind of limited action that escalates into an actual war. From what I understand, as the Commander in Chief he has the full right to perform limited strikes like these at a whim. The cruise missile strike in Syria was unilaterally ordered by Trump over Bannon's protests, and other than warning a few countries the night before he had missiles in the air in less than 12 hours. If it were up to Congress or the UN Security Council, things would be different. But we've unfortunately put a lunatic who speaks like he's having a stroke in charge of the largest military force in the world, and if he's dumb enough to try and bluff that he's going to annihilate North Korea he could also be dumb enough to think that he could bomb a few launch sites and think that nothing will come of it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 15:09
|
|
|
That isn't even remotely what the words "false flag" even mean.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 15:11
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:That isn't even remotely what the words "false flag" even mean. RuanGacho posted:Yeah gently caress that guy and gently caress twitter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 15:12
|
|
|
Some more follow up tweets https://twitter.com/Dalzell60/status/921012265599623168 https://twitter.com/Dalzell60/status/921013207426363393 https://twitter.com/Dalzell60/status/921013651577950209 gently caress this guy
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 15:12
|
|
|
Saying serious poo poo and then suddenly half-backpedaling it is what Trump does. No one else in politics should do that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
Nucken Futz posted:Ha Ha Ha! He's not being naive, just telling an ideologically motivated blue lie.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
 all those prelim korea strike tweets are gone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:
Full irony: North Korea sees the tweets and decides to make a preemptive strike first.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 16:26
|
|
|
Did someone screenshot those? I'm curious as balls now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
Some guy on an unverified account with the name of a guy in a republican think tank had a small little rant that said trump was considering a small strike against NK in order to secure disarmament with the source as multiple republican senators who had been briefed by mcmaster and tillerson. Then he backpedaled a lot saying it might be a white house false flag to prompt china to act anx that it was not a sure thing and just something that had been discussed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:Out of those 4 topics my wife, who isn't at all interested in politics, has read random articles from the South Korean news on everything but anti-North Korean arrests from her news feed. Oh, I knew I shouldn't have used that pronoun- by "they" I meant American sources, like CNN. These issues are absolutely covered in the Korean press. My frustration stems from how the tone of articles like this gives the impression to ignorant Americans that this whole thing is a tempest in a teapot when hard evidence of Park Geun-hye's wrongdoing was really just the last straw of a long list of grievances. Right up until the protests happened American sources were acting like Park Geun-hye was a sensible centrist to be admired for breaking the glass ceiling and that most criticism of her was totally overblown. An article like this which acts like she's the victim of political persecution feeds perfectly into that narrative. But it's all such obviously flimsy bullshit- anyone who's read the prison thread knows that even by the most generous interpretation, Park Geun-hye is being treated like a queen compared to the typical African-American awaiting trial in the United States, but good luck getting CNN to post an article expressing sympathy like that for someone who's not a rich rear end in a top hat. I'm mainly just annoyed that South Korean news now has to cover this article if only to debunk it. If CNN had given half this many shits about Park Geun-hye's actual crimes her impeachment likely would have happened several months earlier. It's legitimately really sad the way the South Korean press assumes anything published in the American press must have been written by someone with some minimum standard of competence.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
If we do end up taking military action in North Korea, then how are we going to even find these missiles that could be hiding in the bunkers?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
Too bad I can't read a single one of those tweets.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
North Korea wants to 'peacefully develop' outer space with use of 'many more' satellitesquote:North Korea's deputy UN ambassador said Tuesday the country plans to launch many more satellites and accused the US of trying to block its efforts to help peacefully develop outer space.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
Missile tests, ever and anon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 03:55
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:North Korea wants to 'peacefully develop' outer space with use of 'many more' satellites Well, he's completely right that the United States sends out more satellites than anyone else on the planet and even if you could sort of technically argue that these are stealth missile tests, satellites have a wide variety of usage beyond just weaponry. Even corporations regularly send out satellites without anyone accusing Elon Musk of being a supervillain whose long term evil plan is to blackmail the Earth with rockets dropped from the moon. Well, anyone not an idiot I mean.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 04:36
|
|
|
When you think about it there isn't really any difference between Elon Musk and Kim Jong Un
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 05:27
|
|
|
You know, I just want to throw this out as a hypothetical. Is there anything Kim Jeong-eun, or any other leader of the North Korean state could do that you'd be willing to let North Korea launch satellites into space like everyone else? Because if the answer is yes you are now willing to deal with the regime to an extent American political leadership has not been willing to. And if the answer is no, maybe you can see why they've decided it saves a lot of time if they just give up any pretext of negotiating with us on anything at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 05:48
|
|
|
Substantial and verifiable political reforms and the dismantling of their nuclear program. Also which "American leadership" are we talking about?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 05:55
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Substantial and verifiable political reforms and the dismantling of their nuclear program. Also which "American leadership" are we talking about? Yeah no. "substantial and verifiable political reforms" could mean drat near anything. After what happened with the Agreed Framework North Korea would never agree to anything that wishy-washy. Allowing them to launch satellites in exchange for them dismantling their nuclear program is not something they would likely agree to, but it would at least be a bargaining position which is a far sight better than anything we have right now. I'm referring to the American leadership we have right now, not that there's been any appreciable difference with election turnovers. As far as I know our position is still "North Korea has to give up nuclear weapons and then maybe we'll make a concession if we feel like it". If your understanding is different, I'd love to hear how my impression is wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 06:03
|
|
|
North Korea should be held to the same lofty political and human rights standards as the US's allies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 06:06
|
|
|
So.....what? What are these most recent articles telling us? To expect a war next week?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 06:14
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:North Korea should be held to the same lofty political and human rights standards as the US's allies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 06:20
|
|
|
Hell we should hold them to the standards we hold for ourselves.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 06:21
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:North Korea should be held to the same lofty political and human rights standards as the US's allies. pretty much any american attack on a regime it considers to be unfriendly is a pot kettle of the highest magnitude, especially when it comes to human rights
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 06:33
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:Yeah no. "substantial and verifiable political reforms" could mean drat near anything. After what happened with the Agreed Framework North Korea would never agree to anything that wishy-washy. Allowing them to launch satellites in exchange for them dismantling their nuclear program is not something they would likely agree to, but it would at least be a bargaining position which is a far sight better than anything we have right now. Oh, you want me to write a giant 500 page treaty as for what precisely is meant? That's not what you asked, you asked what I would want from North Korea in exchange for allowing them to launch satellites. First and foremost I'd want them to stop being a fascist autocracy. This is something nobody wants to ask of them though because apparently it's expecting too much and it infringes on the rights of dictators to murder millions of their own people, and usually just spawns a shitload of whataboutism because the US has problems too. Also the North Koreans weren't obeying the Agreed Framework either. The idea that one day the US abrogated the agreement for no reason and forced plucky little North Korea to get nukes for self defense is bullshit propaganda of the sort that would have been laughed at a year ago but is now in vogue for some reason. quote:I'm referring to the American leadership we have right now, not that there's been any appreciable difference with election turnovers. As far as I know our position is still "North Korea has to give up nuclear weapons and then maybe we'll make a concession if we feel like it". If your understanding is different, I'd love to hear how my impression is wrong. The reason North Korea giving up its nuclear weapons is non-negotiable is because North Korea isn't supposed to have them in the first place. Independent of any bilateral relations with South Korea, Japan, or the USA, North Korea is also in violation of a laundry list of UN resolutions from both the general assembly and even from the security council. Saying "Okay their presence is negotiable and we'll give up this if you give up that" is not only a bullshit false equivalence between North Korea and its negotiating partners but also undermines what little credibility multilateral institutions still have and sends the message that the only thing that really matters is if you have nukes or not and would set the stage for a massive acceleration in nuclear proliferation, something that apparently goons have become fine with over the past 6 months for some reason the reason is Trump
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 06:37
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:North Korea should be held to the same lofty political and human rights standards as the US's allies. I poo poo on autocracies the world over regardless of geopolitical affiliation. It just turns out that in the year 2017 there are only a handful of US allies that are still lovely autocracies (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Philippines)
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 06:40
|
|
|
We're the lovely autocracy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 06:43
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Oh, you want me to write a giant 500 page treaty as for what precisely is meant? That's not what you asked, you asked what I would want from North Korea in exchange for allowing them to launch satellites. First and foremost I'd want them to stop being a fascist autocracy. This is something nobody wants to ask of them though because apparently it's expecting too much and it infringes on the rights of dictators to murder millions of their own people, and usually just spawns a shitload of whataboutism because the US has problems too. The reason we don't ask countries to stop being fascist autocracies isn't because it's expecting too much. It's because we run the risk of someone actually playing ball with us. Imagine if instead of demanding that Saddam give up his non-existent WMDs, we demanded that he transition to a democratic government. Let's say that he has "fair" (actually rigged) elections where he only wins by 70% instead of 99%. Now all of a sudden diplomatic pressure is working and it makes more sense to keep trying that instead of destroying the entire country and starting from nothing, which is what Bush and co. actually wanted to do in the first place. There's also the matter of how dissidents in our fascist autocracy allies might start asking why they aren't held to the same standards as our enemies. But that's a bit beyond the scope of the thread. quote:The reason North Korea giving up its nuclear weapons is non-negotiable is because North Korea isn't supposed to have them in the first place. Independent of any bilateral relations with South Korea, Japan, or the USA, North Korea is also in violation of a laundry list of UN resolutions from both the general assembly and even from the security council. Saying "Okay their presence is negotiable and we'll give up this if you give up that" is not only a bullshit false equivalence between North Korea and its negotiating partners but also undermines what little credibility multilateral institutions still have and sends the message that the only thing that really matters is if you have nukes or not and would set the stage for a massive acceleration in nuclear proliferation, something that apparently goons have become fine with over the past 6 months for some reason the reason is Trump OK, great. Now North Korea has no incentive to negotiate with us at all. That horse already left the barn door. Either you negotiate, you invade, or just accept that North Korea has nukes and there's no way to get rid of them. Those are your options. There's no appeal to decorum. edit: by the way, thanks for admitting that the United States was violating the Agreed Framework. Usually the way that argument goes is that our refusal to adhere to our side was retroactively justified when we discovered "proof" several years later that the North Koreans were violating it all along. You do appreciate that any acknowledgment of any bad faith effort on the part of the Americans at all is closer to the North Korean position than the American one, right? Some Guy TT fucked around with this message at 07:03 on Oct 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 06:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 16:58 |
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:The reason we don't ask countries to stop being fascist autocracies isn't because it's expecting too much. It's because we run the risk of someone actually playing ball with us. Imagine if instead of demanding that Saddam give up his non-existent WMDs, we demanded that he transition to a democratic government. Let's say that he has "fair" (actually rigged) elections where he only wins by 70% instead of 99%. Now all of a sudden diplomatic pressure is working and it makes more sense to keep trying that instead of destroying the entire country and starting from nothing, which is what Bush and co. actually wanted to do in the first place. That's where the "verifiable" qualification comes into play. If it turns out it's rigged, there 'ought to be consequences for that. It doesn't have to be invasion, there are steps that can be taken to progressively ratchet up pressure. The problem with North Korea is that it seems every conceivable way to pressure North Korea short of military action has been tried already. I do think that there's another option in the form of starting to pressure China to outright cease trading with North Korea and to actually implement what it says it is, but everyone clutches pearls at that option too because it disturbs a bilateral status quo that should be increasingly obvious can no longer hold. quote:OK, great. Now North Korea has no incentive to negotiate with us at all. That horse already left the barn door. Either you negotiate, you invade, or just accept that North Korea has nukes and there's no way to get rid of them. Those are your options. There's no appeal to decorum. North Korea's incentive to negotiate is the immense amount of pressure that is already being applied to them by all avenues of power, particularly economically, but with the Chinese providing a relief valve they've decided that they're willing to tolerate it indefinitely. quote:edit: by the way, thanks for admitting that the United States was violating the Agreed Framework. Usually the way that argument goes is that our refusal to adhere to our side was retroactively justified when we discovered "proof" several years later that the North Koreans were violating it all along. You do appreciate that any acknowledgment of any bad faith effort on the part of the Americans at all is closer to the North Korean position than the American one, right? Maybe, but the truth is I don't really give a gently caress about "bad faith" negotiations when dealing with people who are so reprehensible, especially when the sum total of the bad faith is "Bush made a mean speech."
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 07:15
|
|