|
Fojar38 posted: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. Now you just have the same problem with a different country. Because why should China stop trading with North Korea? What's in it for them? Obnoxious as North Korea is right now, the prospect of North Korea turning into a legitimate failed state with a refugee crisis spilling into China is infinitely worse as far as they're concerned, and the United States would have zero incentive to prevent that from happening because we're happy when China's miserable. Which incidentally is also why China helps prop up North Korea in the first place. Because it makes us miserable. quote: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." Uh...you do realize the United States never implemented its side of the Agreed Framework under Clinton either, right? And this happened because North Korea was experiencing a famine and US leaders were hoping it would get bad enough to cause a collapse? That's a bit more serious than "Bush made a mean speech". It also provided a mechanism by which North Korean leadership could very plausibly blame us for their domestic problems. And now that those problems are largely gone, they have successfully transitioned that into their modern day propaganda position of "we succeeded in spite of those Yankees trying to starve us all to death, and if they think they can tell us what to do we're shoving a nuke up their rear end in a top hat!" Call them reprehensible all you like. That doesn't solve the problem. Some Guy TT fucked around with this message at 07:39 on Oct 20, 2017 |
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 07:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 01:49 |
|
|
Fojar38 posted: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." Donald Trump is president and the United States cannot be trusted to uphold their own deals, and has a history of invading nations on variously false, flimsy, or outright aggressive pretexts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 07:37
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:Now you just have the same problem with a different country. Because why should China stop trading with North Korea? What's in it for them? Obnoxious as North Korea is right now, the prospect of North Korea turning into a legitimate failed state with a refugee crisis spilling into China is infinitely worse as far as they're concerned, and the United States would have zero incentive to prevent that from happening because we're happy when China's miserable. Which incidentally is also why China helps prop up North Korea in the first place. Because it makes us miserable. The prospect of American economic pressure on China, something that hasn't been tried yet in any serious sense. China is extremely vulnerable to US pressure on several fronts but particularly on trade, as the US is China's biggest market and also the uncontested ruler of the ocean's shipping lanes, in addition to more conventional sources of power like the issuer of the world's reserve currency. Would this work? Who knows, if it doesn't something else will have to be tried, but as it stands nobody has even seriously suggested it. poo poo, one could make the argument that the US already gave a bunch of concessions to China long ago by looking the other way with regards to it's human rights abuses and neo-mercantalist trade policy on the assumption that China would liberalize further, a thing that only fools believe is still happening. Steve Bannon BS-fuckery aside, that's something that would need renegotiation at this point even without North Korea standing as a living testament to China's malignant influence in the region. quote:Uh...you do realize the United States never implemented its side of the Agreed Framework under Clinton either, right? And this happened because North Korea was experiencing a famine and US leaders were hoping it would get bad enough to cause a collapse? That's a bit more serious than "Bush made a mean speech". It also provided a mechanism by which North Korean leadership could very plausibly blame us for their domestic problems. And now that those problems are largely gone, they have successfully transitioned that into their modern day propaganda position of "we succeeded in spite of those Yankees trying to starve us all to death, and if they think they can tell us what to do we're shoving a nuke up their rear end in a top hat!" The US agreed to ship oil to North Korea (which they did, albeit with delays) and to arrange for light water reactors to be sold to them, which they did. Congressional opposition meant that the funding for the LWR's never happened, so that didn't happen, and economic sanctions weren't eased for the same reason, although the easing of economic sanctions was not itself specifically part of the agreed framework (there was an agreement to "move towards normal political and economic relations" but with no specifics or roadmap past 3 months.) So, aside from Bush saying something stupid, the only quantifiable case of US intransigence in the Agreed Framework was Congress refusing to provide LWR's. That being said, North Korea was experiencing a famine and due to the nature of the North Korean regime, they couldn't/wouldn't feed their people. To be blunt, that's not the USA's fault. The USA does not bear responsibility for not personally taking care of the people living in despotic regimes for the benefit of their despotic leaders, when the reason the people are suffering in the first place is because of said despotic regime. The extent to which the US has a moral responsibility is isolating and containing those regimes and being ready to destroy them should they attempt to expand. If you believe there's a moral responsibility beyond that then you're probably a neoconservative.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 07:57
|
|
|
What happens if we start a trade war with China and they still find that preferable to a North Korean refugee crisis?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 08:26
|
|
|
RandomPauI posted:What happens if we start a trade war with China and they still find that preferable to a North Korean refugee crisis?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 08:40
|
|
|
The actual concern should be starting a trade war with China and it escalating out of control as nationalists on both sides make their plays, rather than the Chinese immediately backing down. Plus you bet your rear end 'help with NK' wouldn't be the only concession the US would want out of such a move.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 08:43
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:I somehow doubt they would prefer a full-scale embargo to a refugee crisis. Somehow. We have more to lose of a full scale embargo of China than China does
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 08:49
|
|
|
SA_Avenger posted:We have more to lose of a full scale embargo of China than China does And I mean, would a theoretical trade war include getting, say, the NAFTA and European countries in on the deal? Because that'd be a waaaaaay harder sell to them these days. If China can just trade with everyone else anyway, losing the US might not hurt nearly as much as you'd hope for in such a scenario.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 08:52
|
|
|
SA_Avenger posted:We have more to lose of a full scale embargo of China than China does This isn't nesscarily true but it's still a loving bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 08:54
|
|
|
Yeah, the rest of the world isn't going to stop trading with China over North Korea, and even the Trump administration realizes this. Also, a bunch of American corporations would take a blow as their supply lines got suddenly snapped, and they absolutely don't give a poo poo about national security if it costs their bottom line. China knows this, and will continue exporting to North Korea despite signing on to multiple rounds of sanctions (although imports from NK have slowed).
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 09:00
|
|
|
In the first place, the bulk of Chinese trade with NK happens under the table, so China can fabricate whatever numbers they want and claim they're following through on sanctions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 09:01
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:In the first place, the bulk of Chinese trade with NK happens under the table, so China can fabricate whatever numbers they want and claim they're following through on sanctions. Even their official numbers only showed that exports to NK declined about 6.8%, admittedly this might be an overestimation. That said, it is quite logical China would be willing to slow down NK imports, this forces NK to rely on Chinese trade credits which would give China more leverage. I don't think China wants to crush North Korea, but rather have it under their thumb completely.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 09:06
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:To be blunt, that's not the USA's fault. The USA does not bear responsibility for not personally taking care of the people living in despotic regimes for the benefit of their despotic leaders, when the reason the people are suffering in the first place is because of said despotic regime. The extent to which the US has a moral responsibility is isolating and containing those regimes and being ready to destroy them should they attempt to expand. If you believe there's a moral responsibility beyond that then you're probably a neoconservative. "If you disagree with Cheney and Bush on regime change and diplomacy you're a neoconservative" 
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 09:07
|
|
|
We'd want more from China than "stop propping up North Korea. We'd also want them to do more to protect US IP, to stop exporting cheap steel and solar panels, to back off the South China Sea, lower barriers to the import of US agricultural products. They could easily retaliate by stopping the export of rare earth minerals (they're the main exporter), putting higher tarrifs on US automobiles and agricultural products (they're the number two importer of US foodstuff), cancelling US civilian aircraft orders, reimposing a ban on US beef and chicken imports, disregarding even more IP. This would , obviously, hurt US manufacturing and farming.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 09:08
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:"If you disagree with Cheney and Bush on regime change and diplomacy you're a neoconservative" How on earth did you get that from his post Gotta say I'm really loving how rabid anti-Americanism is driving goons into the arms of despots though. Forget 9/11, Iraq broke people's brains far the more.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 14:22
|
|
Cat Army 
|
The Iron Rose posted:How on earth did you get that from his post Weird how people don't trust our foreign policy after we killed a million arabs in an aggressive war and then elected wet rear end President Mayor McCheese.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:How on earth did you get that from his post I'd rather do nothing and try to come up with a better solution than do something that is obviously going to make things worse.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
Yandat posted:Weird how people don't trust our foreign policy after we killed a million arabs in an aggressive war and then elected wet rear end President Mayor McCheese.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 16:17
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:When you think about it there isn't really any difference between Elon Musk and Kim Jong Un New thread title please.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
Given that North Korea runs actual concentration camps (among many other issues; that's just something I would hope absolutely no one can defend, unless your name is Bruce Cumings) I don't think treating them differently from other nations is uncalled for. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/11/north-korea-prison-camps-very-much-in-working-order/
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
Lum_ posted:Given that North Korea runs actual concentration camps (among many other issues; that's just something I would hope absolutely no one can defend, unless your name is Bruce Cumings) I don't think treating them differently from other nations is uncalled for. By best estimates from international human rights observers their incarceration rate is almost on par with ours.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
Yandat posted:By best estimates from international human rights observers their incarceration rate is almost on par with ours. "Attica is the same size as Auschwitz, therefore America is just as bad." The issue isn't the incarceration rate, it's why people are incarcerated and what happens to them during said incarceration. I won't indulge your whataboutism much further but suffice to say for all their many fault American prisons aren't torture factories. But yep, you showed me, people will actually defend concentration camps. Lum_ fucked around with this message at 17:47 on Oct 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
Lum_ posted:"Attica is the same size as Auschwitz, therefore America is just as bad." It's not just as bad. We're still a pariah nation with the highest incarceration rate in the world ruled by a guy who got a minority of the votes in an election where half of eligible voters didn't participate, and everything we touch manages to destabilize swaths of the world resulting in massive refugee crises and death. I know most political nerds are kneejerk on "but we HAVE TO DO SOMETHING" (especially while Donald Trump is head of state) but maybe we should let the region handle it instead of seeing how much we can destabilize North Korea from the other side of the world because we think we can predict the future. quote:The issue isn't the incarceration rate, it's why people are incarcerated and what happens to them during said incarceration. I won't indulge your whataboutism much further but suffice to say for all their many fault American prisons aren't torture factories. "Whataboutism" is a term scoundrels use to deflect away anyone pointing out hypocrisy and reasons for doubting the intentions and interventionism of the United States. quote:But yep, you showed me, people will actually defend concentration camps. That's exactly what I'm saying, concentration camps,, are Good, to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
Lum_ posted:But yep, you showed me, people will actually defend concentration camps. Well yeah it isn't to hard to find someone proud of concentration camps: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7reZOp2Qco
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Well yeah it isn't to hard to find someone proud of concentration camps: I agree, both North Korea and Joe Arpaio should be sanctioned if they test ballistic missiles.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
Lum_ posted:I agree, both North Korea and Joe Arpaio should be carpet bombed by B-52s if they test ballistic missiles. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 18:27
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
In another era forjar would’ve been a pith helmeted sneering imperialist instead of the whining white boy about the mean East Asians
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:In another era forjar would’ve been a pith helmeted sneering imperialist instead of the whining white boy about the mean East Asians Why are you so evil
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
SA_Avenger posted:We have more to lose of a full scale embargo of China than China does This is false. Kerning Chameleon posted:And I mean, would a theoretical trade war include getting, say, the NAFTA and European countries in on the deal? Because that'd be a waaaaaay harder sell to them these days. If China can just trade with everyone else anyway, losing the US might not hurt nearly as much as you'd hope for in such a scenario. That's not how it works. The US is the only country that can absorb the number of exports being put out not just by China but by exporting countries around the world. The US market is just that loving huge. Even if literally every other country on the planet had full free trade with China the absence of access to the US market would be crippling. RandomPauI posted:We'd want more from China than "stop propping up North Korea. We'd also want them to do more to protect US IP, to stop exporting cheap steel and solar panels, to back off the South China Sea, lower barriers to the import of US agricultural products. The Chinese have tried using stopping exports of REM's as a geopolitical cudgel before in a dispute with Japan, and what happened is that demand for REM's went up, making mines more profitable and causing new ones to open up, particularly in the USA, that the Japanese sourced from. The Chinese backed off real quick because they learned that doing this swiftly eroded their REM monopoly. The Chinese REM monopoly still hasn't recovered; it went from a nearly 100% monopoly to 80%. As for the rest, China is already in the process of doing those things if they haven't already. China is rapidly sinking back into full dictatorship and part and parcel with that is increasing upticks in economic nationalism. Higher tariffs on US autos and cancelling US aircraft orders is something that they already really really want to do, and the only reason they haven't yet is because they can't. But you're right; US manufacturing and farming would be hurt, but nowhere near as hurt as virtually every level of the Chinese economy would be if they lost access to the US market.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
What we really need right now is for Trump to play chicken with a global trade war.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:But you're right; US manufacturing and farming would be hurt, but nowhere near as hurt as virtually every level of the Chinese economy would be if they lost access to the US market. Even if the US wouldn't be outright crippled, starting a trade war with China is one of the absolute worst ideas imaginable. Intentionally hurting the American economy has a ton of obvious problems, and one of them would be loving up Trump's and the GOP's reputation with its own citizens. Considering that they're already on shaky ground nationally and a large portion of the US population wants the president impeached for blatant corruption and extreme mismanagement (such that he appears mentally ill) before he even finishes his first year, playing chicken with the nation is practically suicide.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:I'd rather do nothing
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Even if the US wouldn't be outright crippled, starting a trade war with China is one of the absolute worst ideas imaginable. Intentionally hurting the American economy has a ton of obvious problems, and one of them would be loving up Trump's and the GOP's reputation with its own citizens. Considering that they're already on shaky ground nationally and a large portion of the US population wants the president impeached for blatant corruption and extreme mismanagement (such that he appears mentally ill) before he even finishes his first year, playing chicken with the nation is practically suicide. Depends on how they spin it. Ultimately, they'll likely just play it off like they've done every economic problem they caused for the past 30 years: make a bad decision that has horrible long term effects, leave the next D administration to handle it, blame said administration for handling it badly or even have the gall to blame them for causing it, win the next round.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
Cross posting from the Trump thread http://www.reuters.com/article/us-n...SKBN1CP2SG?il=0 I'm not trying to defend Trump, but this may be the reason why he's been threatening action against North Korea Of course, it's a dumb as hell tactic, and I'm not sure if this will really convince Xi to do a whole lot more
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/W7VOA/status/921554906510712837
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
Huh. Isn't telling people to get out the moment people said to panic?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 03:16
|
|
|
Is this worth worrying about? They're pretty much saying the same thing as always: that the U.S. has a military option, and is serious about it Willo567 fucked around with this message at 03:21 on Oct 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
Willo567 posted:Is this worth worrying about? Nah. Trump's more likely to catch a bullet in the head from an untraceable source *coughPencecough* before he can get along to starting a meat grinder.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 04:37
|
|
|
FWIW nobody has been able to confirm that's an official order or document because Twitter is a giant cesspool of poo poo, per usual. It sounds fake as gently caress and more people would be talking about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 01:49 |
|
|
Sounds like horseshit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 00:04
|
|
