|
Kerning Chameleon posted:I think you're missing the long-term point of such a strategy.
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 16:34 |
|
|
I mean the long term strategy in that case is obviously hegemony over the entire South China Sea. Japan and SK are part of that. China hasn't exactly been secretive with their ambitions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 02:12
|
|
|
 These are from the anniversary rally a couple days ago at Gwanghwamun Square to commemorate the rallies which forced Park Geun-hye from office.  This prominent display is a list of all foreign American military actions. They're a bit hard to see, what with being gray text in the background, but they were all translated into Korean. Upper left corner for huge, although the last image is better if you want to try to actually read the text.  Half an hour before the official start time. I didn't stick around because I was busy. So not human wave style crowds like we saw last year, but still a pretty big deal.  My point in showing all these is to demonstrate that explicit anti-American sentiment is now common enough in South Korea that such imagery can now be seen publicly. A couple of years ago this would have been unthinkable- not even the candelight rallies this event was commemorating ever went anywhere near this far. What's more, Weeks before the rally took place I found a random Trump = Hitler flyer on the street.  These displays appear to have been organized by the People's Democracy Party. They're new- I'd never heard of them before. They formed after the last election, so they have no seats. Considering how the next legislative elections are in three years, it looks like they'll be competing with the Justice Party for the far left section of the local vote, and are concerning themselves with activism at the moment.  Trump = Hitler wasn't the only issue covered. A lot of "arrest Lee Myung-bak" banners were floating around. But given Gwanghwamun's location right next to the American Embassy, it's pretty clear a lot of this was sending a clear message that a significant portion of the South Korean population are fed up with Trump's bullshit. My main concern is that US Embassy personnel did not get the message, because they are idiots who do not look out their own window or talk to anyone who is not a rich reactionary rear end in a top hat. Unfortunately this is a more likely circumstance than you would think. edit: bonus image-  It's not much- just a normal public manner with the same "Trump bad" message you see everywhere else. But yeah, that's the main problem for US Korean policy right now. Obama had a good enough public image that nobody paid attention to his poo poo North Korea policy. Having been given a two year primer on how uniquely terrible Trump is, South Korean leftists are much, much less shy about vocalizing their disapproval of American actions on the Korean peninsula using him as a lightning rod anywhere they can get the message out. Because what are we going to do? Suggest that Trump isn't an existential threat against the human race when our own news media say that he is every single day? Some Guy TT fucked around with this message at 09:24 on Oct 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 08:57
|
|
|
Those are cool pictures and I wish them luck because they're entirely right about us.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
Yandat posted:Those are cool pictures and I wish them luck because they're entirely right about us. It's actually pretty telling how small the turnout was, things are in a bit of a lull right now and people seem to have kinda figured out the new normal now includes two idiots using bombastic rhetoric instead of just the usual one. This was much smaller than the random anti-North Korean human rights abuse protest going on the last time I was through there and it was a drop in the bucket compared to the crazy big protests about kicking out Park or, say, the ones about America conspiring to sell contaminated mad cow beef to Korea. Anti-American imagery and rhetoric has always been a thing, particularly on the fringe left (ex: tankies) and fringe right (ex: ethno-nationalists). It hasn't been banned or hidden for quite a long time now. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 03:06 on Oct 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 02:57
|
|
|
What anti-North Korean human rights abuse protests have you been going to? I've never seen one of those that was any larger than the Sewol display that has been at Gwanghwamun literally every day for the last three years. As far as the commonality of anti-American imagery goes, I disagree. Yes, it has always been a thing, but it has always been relegated to whatever specific incident was being protested at the time. I've never seen a large display suggesting the whole of American foreign policy is an inherently imperialist project before, and certainly not in such a public setting. And the idea that such thought hasn't been hidden for "quite a long time now" is just plain ridiculous. Park Geun-hye banned a political party outright. The reason why the kicking out Park protests were such a big deal is because before it happened no one was sure protests on that scale could be managed again. Lee Myung-bak and Parlk Geun-hye were notorious for using the police to bully protesters. It was big factor in why the giant protests happened in the first place. edit: come to think of it I can't remember ever seeing any anti-North Korean protests here for years, at least. I've seen more Falun Gong protests since I've been here than anything about North Korean atrocities. Some Guy TT fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Oct 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
That dude (or somebody holding the same two signs) has been parked outside the US Embassy for a few weeks now. Without fail, anytime I walk up that side of Gwangwhamun I see those two posterboards.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
Well it looks like that Nuclear Testing Site collapsed just now.
Grouchio fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Oct 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Well it looks like that Nuclear Testing Site collapsed just now. They report that it collapsed october 10th, not "just now"
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:They report that it collapsed october 10th, not "just now" Ohh.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:They report that it collapsed october 10th, not "just now" I thought that was a minor collapse, and that folks were fearing there was the potential for a more catastrophic event?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The more pertinent question isn't if NK will start a war but if the US will. A bit late to respond to this, but: I don't see a lot of actual motivation for the US to be the actor who kicks off a renewed Korean War conflict. Yes, even with Trump at the helm. Actually, especially with Trump at the helm, and even with a Republican-led government. Trump has shown himself to be mercurial, to be questionably loyal to those serving under him, and to be consistently shirking and avoiding the responsibilities of his office. What motivation does the US military have to obey difficult orders given by an unreliable commander-in-chief, who can't be relied upon to give his full attention to the conflict in the one hand, and who will throw people under the wheels at the first signs of trouble with the other? Absent a significant and indisputable provocation, like North Korea actually killing a bunch of Americans or attacking American territory (though, um, even then...), how many generals are going to risk their careers and positions over North Korea for Trump, if they can convince him that it would be a reckless folly that would wreck him, and when the North Korean situation might still be salvageable? And if Congress isn't showing an interest in a major military response to North Korea's saber-waving right now, then the military isn't likely to lead in that direction, either (even if Trump has supposedly given them a freer hand to manage military affairs with). It's not so much that one follows the other, as it is that both can see a war with North Korea at this time being politically risky and excessively dangerous with minimal gain for the US. So yeah...if Trump were more serious and credible as an interested leader, then we could see the US starting a war with North Korea. But since he's not, then I suspect a scenario like I outlined on the last page is more likely to be what the US is going for - let North Korea tangle itself up with nuclear nonsense, maintain the current position in South Korea as an absolute fallthrough, and see if North Korea backs down or if China decides to try and put them in line.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 01:14
|
|
|
I really doubt many generals are going to reject another round of military adventurism. People always downplay the risk of conflict based on the idea that everyone in power should be too scared of the consequences to act, but the military is built and structured deliberately to ensure that actions are decisive and any personal doubts are insulated by bureaucracy and pressure to present a united front. Besides, it's one thing for a high up source in the military to voice anonymous concern now, it's a whole other thing to risk your career and your own freedom by publicly speaking out against the government in wartime. There will probably not be a war, because it is in no ones best interest, but if there is, the establishment will fall in and protests here and in S.Korea won't change anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:It's actually pretty telling how small the turnout was, things are in a bit of a lull right now and people seem to have kinda figured out the new normal now includes two idiots using bombastic rhetoric instead of just the usual one. This was much smaller than the random anti-North Korean human rights abuse protest going on the last time I was through there and it was a drop in the bucket compared to the crazy big protests about kicking out Park or, say, the ones about America conspiring to sell contaminated mad cow beef to Korea. gee i wonder why anti-american sentiment is so common in multiple political tendencies all around the world. this is a real stumper
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
Everyone is clearly just jealous of Trump
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 02:43
|
|
|
StudlyCaps posted:I really doubt many generals are going to reject another round of military adventurism. People always downplay the risk of conflict based on the idea that everyone in power should be too scared of the consequences to act, but the military is built and structured deliberately to ensure that actions are decisive and any personal doubts are insulated by bureaucracy and pressure to present a united front. Well, yeah, that's pretty much my point. Absent some kind of tangible justification to act against North Korea (like, say, North Korea attacking American forces at the DMZ, which is unlikely), there's no decisiveness in Trump that the military can rely on, no unified front from top to bottom that conveys the message of "We're doing this, right or wrong, and standing behind it!". They can't trust Trump to know or be interested in the dynamics of what is happening with North Korea. They can't trust Trump to sit down and button up and get proper briefings about the situation, either. They can't trust Trump to make hard, painful military decisions. They can't trust Trump to stand by his decisions and own the consequences of them. They can't trust Trump to stand by them, in the end. And so this creates a dynamic wherein the US military is more likely to bide its time and maintain its current posture, especially if the situation still seems manageable and developing. It's all gravy for the military, after all - they still get their budget and pay, they get to look restrained and in control in the face of crisis, and if something does happen, then they will likely have the permission to act and they can shape a media narrative onto Trump for "not giving orders" to deflect attention and accusations of blame from themselves (not that I think the US military should act preemptively). Remember that even if the military voted heavily for Trump, that was for him as the bombastic candidate who would turn into another mediocre George W. Bush-alike when he won. Now that the obvious truth about Trump being a human turd is out and support for him in military communities was down as of June 2017, I bet a lot of military personnel and officials are more reserved about putting their lives on the line for him if they absolutely don't have to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 05:03
|
|
|
Do you think Hilary would've gotten us into nuclear war by now if she had somehow become president, hypothetically?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 05:11
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Do you think Hilary would've gotten us into nuclear war by now if she had somehow become president, hypothetically? Given her views on the outcome would be closer to Threads than The Turner Diaries, no. Trump, on the other hand, has this Steve Jobs-esque delusion around him that his wealth overturns expert opinion. But given he'd probably be found to have accidentally brutally cut off his own head while shaving if the lads in the shadow thought he was actually about to touch off a special (As in the adjective of species) event? Kind of a non-issue anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 05:41
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Do you think Hilary would've gotten us into nuclear war by now if she had somehow become president, hypothetically? No. I was a Bernie supporter who voted for Clinton, because if nothing else I wasn't going to say to future people (myself included) that I sat out voting against Donald Trump. So if that bit of where I'm coming from helps to inform and digest the following: The administrative transition from Obama to her would probably have been a lot more mundane and orderly than it has been with Trump. This would have kept a lot of the existing diplomatic apparatus in place, and there likely wouldn't have been as significant a shift in diplomatic understanding between the US and the rest of the world, both in tone and the faith given to the American government. Thus, Hillary would have been a "strong" leader in this regard, by continuing the Obama-era status quo and building upon it. That would have given North Korea more hesitation to start stirring things up, because it was a world order status quo that they already understood the dynamics of. And even if North Korea did act, there would be a lot more global will behind condemning North Korea and pressuring them to cease what they're doing. I do think Clinton would be more decisive about military action in this scenario, if it came to it, but her political ducks would be in order to enable it, rather than seeming reckless and unpredictable (and hence unreliable) the way Trump is making us look. That could include a total naval blockade to enforce a global embargo on imports to North Korea, including deployment by China of the PLA to the North Korean border and heavy smuggling crackdowns. There would probably be controversies about fishing boats being mistaken for smuggling vessels and being shot at, and VICE would probably do some expose about smugglers who defy the blockade to smuggle goods into North Korea and bring contraband back out for sale on the black market. Maybe they're Colombian cartel submarine guys operating from the Philippines, and North Korea would be doing weird illegal poo poo like cultivating coca leaves and breeding exotic animals to sell to the international culinary, medicinal, and pet trade markets, among other morally dubious and horrendous narcostate activities and trafficking. Tensions would be a lot higher and it would be more of a constant standoff situation (perhaps ala the US and Soviet Union at their highest tension) rather than the current "back burner boilover" situation it has been to this point. Japan might begin formal remilitarization of its SDF and representative branches into an actual offensive force and do a preliminary naval deployment into the Sea of Japan to participate in an embargo and react against incursions by North Korean naval vessels, along with anti-smuggling duty (probably against boats from Russia, operating out of Kamchatka, though it would have to be pretty high-value smuggling back and forth to justify bringing goods across Siberia). The embargo would probably not pressure North Korea into acquiescing immediately, so long as enough goods got smuggled through and produced internally to keep the regime running and the state security apparatus in place. It would undoubtedly be another "Long March" scenario, though, and the open question of it would be if North Korea surrendered its nukes to end the embargo in time enough to stabilize its domestic situation, or if they failed to act in time and the state fell apart into defecting independent regions. Depending on how the above played out, North Korea would either give in and go back to the bargaining table (and this time with more frank dialog among the participants), or the Pyongyang regime would become weakened and isolated enough to risk a military intervention against if they don't give in to demands or collapse first. Situation reverts back to a status quo with a new/renewed understanding between North Korea and/or a confederation of autonomous Korean republics, maybe reforms begin to occur in North Korea as part of a peace accord, and everyone cheers at Clinton's success until a new flashpoint pops up because of China, Taiwan, or the Philippines. I hope that answers your question? I think Hillary would have been seen as a "strong" leader by brutal-view leaders (as I would classify Kim and Xi to be) for the above reasons, despite being a woman and stereotypes about that. They would have seen her as someone who might shy away from actually pulling the trigger herself (both as a gun control Democrat and as a "friendly" democratic leader who can't readily indulge violent ideas), but who would be willing to order that triggers be pulled at her behest (yes, I sincerely promise that I am not invoking Clinton murder conspiracies with this). Just that she would be willing to order death, be it against an individual (ala Osama bin Laden) or a nation, if circumstances demanded it. And as a credible politician (up to her loss in this timeline, but obviously continuing as such in this hypothetical one I'm laying out), they would believe she had enough connections and credibility in her government backing her on that. Trump, on the other hand, is a brutal-view leader who doesn't impress "friendly" democratic leaders, and even worse, he doesn't impress other brutal-view leaders! Putin is probably embarrassed at himself for overestimating Trump's capability, Xi is probably licking his chops at how much circle-running he's going to manage on us (the US), and of the course, the man himself - Kim Jong-un. Kim was probably initially confused by Trump's lack of grand presidential response to his provocations. Even calling him a "dotard" (and I can't recall a North Korean polemic ever getting that personally specific) hasn't really provoked any meaningful response. So they're probably still a little unsure about how to proceed from here, but it's pretty clear that they don't respect Trump. They don't see a man who understands blood on his hands, and they do see he lacks the self-awareness of his role and position to not act like he does. So they see him as a poseur and a phony, unreliable, and perhaps we could soon see kitty cat North Korea trying to engage with China to help bring them down from the high tree branches - lest they fall and detonate the hand grenade they drag around on their collar for some crazy reason, you see? And that explosion might be soon anyway, because the person who used to help get them down has gone inside, and they're not sure if he's ignoring them to fall off the branches or getting a shotgun to blast at them, and China, you really don't want a bunch of explosions near your fenceline and cat guts all over your lawn, do you? Someone make an animated GIF of that, with or without anime is fine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 07:20
|
|
|
Thank you very much. I too was a bernie supporter who voted for Clinton because gently caress Trump, and I have a hard time believing that tensions would've been hypothetically higher than they were in August and September. Talks of possible scenarios still wreck my nerves from time to time you see. I shouldn't be worrying about this new status quo though, right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 07:31
|
|
|
The Obama era policies you're implicitly coding as "sensible" are the exact same policies that led to the current standoff. The policies you're suggesting Hilary would have spearheaded are not any functionally different than the ones Trump is trying and failing to spearhead right now. The only meaningful difference between the two is that you seem to think Hilary would have some sort of respectability advantage over Trump that would allow her to pursue them farther. The problem with that is, the only reason why the Chinese have even gone as far as they did this time was because they thought they could use Trump's clean slate to push their own agenda, and now that this isn't happening, they've simply gone back into their normal "who gives a gently caress" posture. Clinton was all but explicitly running on being Obama's third term. Why would they treat her any different than they did Obama? Besides that North Korea doesn't consider our power transitions to be as meaningful as we do. From their perspective, the exact same series of events play out regardless of whether the Republicans or the Democrats are running the show. I do believe their plans were influenced by 2016, not in the sense that they cared who won the 2016 election or when exactly Park Geun-hye was leaving office, but in the sense that both events exposed awful fractures in the United States and South Korean governments that left them with major legitimacy issues. I don't know where the posters in this thread got the weird idea that protest doesn't matter or that it can be shut down with a snap of a finger by just pushing out kitschcy propaganda posters, but it doesn't work like that. Public leftist protest is at a high ebb in South Korea, and public attitude on Korean peninsula issues in the United States is so ambivalent that even the comments sections of conservative websites are filled with people wondering what exactly our stake is in the Korean peninsula and why we shouldn't just leave. These are major systemic issues that have been building up for over a decade that are not in any meaningfully way abated by the replacement of one unpopular political figure who makes dumb tweets with another one who does not. And good grief, if starving the country to death during the actual long march didn't work, what in the world makes you think it's going to work now without a natural famine and with the North Korean food system better set up to deal with harvest shortfalls? fake edit: your continuing use of fascist language to discuss not just South Korean political leadership but also our own is seriously starting to creep me out by the way
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 08:00
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Thank you very much. I too was a bernie supporter who voted for Clinton because gently caress Trump, and I have a hard time believing that tensions would've been hypothetically higher than they were in August and September. Talks of possible scenarios still wreck my nerves from time to time you see. I shouldn't be worrying about this new status quo though, right? Nah, it's not something to worry about, in my hypothesis.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 08:18
|
|
|
There is nothing tangible to gain from an armed confrontation for either side. No matter how war horny Trump is, the republicans aren't dumb enough to stake their careers on a new quagmire in Korea - I wouldn't worry at this point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 08:33
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:The Obama era policies you're implicitly coding as "sensible" are the exact same policies that led to the current standoff. The policies you're suggesting Hilary would have spearheaded are not any functionally different than the ones Trump is trying and failing to spearhead right now. The only meaningful difference between the two is that you seem to think Hilary would have some sort of respectability advantage over Trump that would allow her to pursue them farther. The problem with that is, the only reason why the Chinese have even gone as far as they did this time was because they thought they could use Trump's clean slate to push their own agenda, and now that this isn't happening, they've simply gone back into their normal "who gives a gently caress" posture. Clinton was all but explicitly running on being Obama's third term. Why would they treat her any different than they did Obama? We're indeed talking about a hypothetical Clinton election victory, and a continuation of Obama-era policies, that I acknowledged could lead to North Korea still being nuclear assholes. I also outlined a possible response (admittedly, in broad strokes) to settle that crisis under a hypothetical Clinton administration. And respectability matters. It matters a lot, I think, in international politics. Because the world has been trained through decades of US power swaggering, military action, and political meddling to consider the US response and reaction to what might happen if they pursue a certain course of action. Our reliable predictability for most geopolitical matters is important; consider all that talk about global banking systems being coded to assume that the United States will always make debt payments, and no one being quite sure how they'll handle a missed payment across the board. This is the case for allies, for friends, even for enemies - a constant factor to be calculated. Also, don't mistake the term "respectability" as being synonymous with "good", "benevolent", and so forth. But when our respectability tanks (as Trump has currently done to us), then it becomes an uncertain value almost everyday, and the geopolitical math doesn't work out like it should. Enemies start to consider what it might mean for the US to not be present in or near their areas of interest, while friends and allies start to question how committed we really are to their well-being. Which then leads to questions beyond "How is the US going to act?" to "What if the US doesn't commit to act? What am I going to do by myself?". And the same applies for a state like China who, even if they don't necessarily like us as political rivals, have been working with the US regarding North Korea (and under the expectation that we will operate under the same conditions and protocols as usual). If we look disorderly and like we're acting recklessly, then it raises that latter question above - suddenly, with the US presence now a void, China will have to consider their response and handling of North Korea more directly than before. Unless you believe that China, who shares a border with North Korea, has less interest in what happens to the grody nuclear power right next door than the US does? Some Guy TT posted:Besides that North Korea doesn't consider our power transitions to be as meaningful as we do. From their perspective, the exact same series of events play out regardless of whether the Republicans or the Democrats are running the show. I do believe their plans were influenced by 2016, not in the sense that they cared who won the 2016 election or when exactly Park Geun-hye was leaving office, but in the sense that both events exposed awful fractures in the United States and South Korean governments that left them with major legitimacy issues. Well, yes. They don't hang onto our every moment with a popcorn tub in their hand like many DnD posters do, watching US political play-by-plays on bootleg satellite feeds of C-SPAN. But I have no doubt that they did observe the campaign and election and considered their options for how they might engage with the US, depending on who won. And I imagine they had a more conservative, by-the-playbook view for a Clinton win, and a more extreme (and possibly badly miscalculated) plan for dealing with Trump's brashness by using extreme rhetoric and waving the nukes around a bit. And I say "badly miscalculated", because North Korea may have thought that Trump was ultimately rational (if a bit wimpy-seeming and politically naive, which they could use to their advantage) and would have the US come to the negotiating table in good faith to make a deal to settle whatever grievance North Korea had. North Korea gets some concessions (likely a lifting of sanctions), Trump looks presidential and wins, all would be well. Where they miscalculated, of course, is in assuming that Trump has enough of an attention span or interest in being president to play ball with them, and also that the State Department wouldn't be so done-thing. So now they have to figure out how to back down from the rhetoric they've espoused and the actions they've taken in all of this, because the alternative is tucking tail, looking stupid, and quietly raging about the resources they wasted on a nuclear program that doesn't resolve whatever internal dilemmas the country is facing this year. Or, as I previously outlined, coming into China's sphere of influence. Some Guy TT posted:I don't know where the posters in this thread got the weird idea that protest doesn't matter or that it can be shut down with a snap of a finger by just pushing out kitschcy propaganda posters, but it doesn't work like that. Public leftist protest is at a high ebb in South Korea, and public attitude on Korean peninsula issues in the United States is so ambivalent that even the comments sections of conservative websites are filled with people wondering what exactly our stake is in the Korean peninsula and why we shouldn't just leave. These are major systemic issues that have been building up for over a decade that are not in any meaningfully way abated by the replacement of one unpopular political figure who makes dumb tweets with another one who does not. Well, great - what are the terms of the US withdrawal from the Korean peninsula going to be, and when's the deadline for it to be complete? Since it sure sounds like it's right around the corner? What will the US' defense commitment be between its enacting and deadline? Should North Korea be brought into the loop on all this? Does any South Korean leftist group or party have an outline of how it would be introduced and work, or is it just (admittedly justified) spleen-venting that will go nowhere even with a strong leftist presence in the South Korean national assembly? Because it seems like the sort of thing that's easy to make political hash about, Some Guy TT posted:And good grief, if starving the country to death during the actual long march didn't work, what in the world makes you think it's going to work now without a natural famine and with the North Korean food system better set up to deal with harvest shortfalls? Deprivation and hardship happening again in living memory for many North Koreans? A resource crisis exacerbating existing political tensions and factionalism in North Korea, as fuel supplies are used up and agricultural productivity suffers? Deaths from cold, sickness, injury, childbirth and the like because there's no heating oil and no medicine, taking a psychological toll on survivors? North Koreans being more worldly and cynical about the North Korean government today than in the past? Those seem like pretty significant stress factors that would strain North Korean society, and I don't think you can just handwave them away so easily. Some Guy TT posted:fake edit: your continuing use of fascist language to discuss not just South Korean political leadership but also our own is seriously starting to creep me out by the way Fascist? Really? Seriously? Because it's strange that no one else but yourself appears to be seeing that or commenting on it in my posts in this here thread. So maybe it's just you with the problem here, and I really don't appreciate you pinning a disgusting label like that onto me so casually.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 10:30
|
|
|
Kthulhu5000 posted:And respectability matters. It matters a lot, I think, in international politics. Because the world has been trained through decades of US power swaggering, military action, and political meddling to consider the US response and reaction to what might happen if they pursue a certain course of action. Our reliable predictability for most geopolitical matters is important; consider all that talk about global banking systems being coded to assume that the United States will always make debt payments, and no one being quite sure how they'll handle a missed payment across the board. Again, you are making the assumption that Trump's stupid tweets represent a significant break from existing American policy. They don't. So far everything he has done has been completely in line with what we've already been doing. He's just moved on from implicit threats to explicit threats. I've seen no evidence that anyone in the region considers this new distinction to be meaningful. Even Moon Jae-in, the one ally we would most likely expect to see react differently in such circumstances, continues to parrot the same America = Allies line that every South Korean leader elected or not has done since the Korean War. quote:And I say "badly miscalculated", because North Korea may have thought that Trump was ultimately rational (if a bit wimpy-seeming and politically naive, which they could use to their advantage) and would have the US come to the negotiating table in good faith to make a deal to settle whatever grievance North Korea had. North Korea gets some concessions (likely a lifting of sanctions), Trump looks presidential and wins, all would be well. If you think North Korea is losing the propaganda war right now, I honestly don't know what to tell you. As far as I can tell the situation is going exactly the way they want. You yourself admit that war is fantastically unlikely at this juncture. quote:Well, great - what are the terms of the US withdrawal from the Korean peninsula going to be, and when's the deadline for it to be complete? Since it sure sounds like it's right around the corner? What will the US' defense commitment be between its enacting and deadline? Should North Korea be brought into the loop on all this? Now who's the one demanding a five hundred page treatise? All right all right, not you, I just couldn't resist pointing out the irony. No, nobody has a plan. That's because no one needs one right now because no one believes Trump is going to through with his threats. That will change rapidly if extreme hypotheticals like what have been discussed in this thread come to pass. quote:Deprivation and hardship happening again in living memory for many North Koreans? A resource crisis exacerbating existing political tensions and factionalism in North Korea, as fuel supplies are used up and agricultural productivity suffers? Deaths from cold, sickness, injury, childbirth and the like because there's no heating oil and no medicine, taking a psychological toll on survivors? North Koreans being more worldly and cynical about the North Korean government today than in the past? Suffering is hard-baked into Korean culture. Even South Koreans have a concept of Han. The idea that life sucks and that they are going to forever be bullied by stronger neighbors or even incompetent governments is a strong one. All the same, Korea has not broken as a concept under much harsher invasion conditions in antiquity, let alone living memory, and I remain extremely skeptical that the North Koreans are going to break down and lose morale any day now when they've already made it this far. quote:Fascist? Really? Seriously? Because it's strange that no one else but yourself appears to be seeing that or commenting on it in my posts in this here thread. So maybe it's just you with the problem here, and I really don't appreciate you pinning a disgusting label like that onto me so casually. Dude, your post made explicit reference to how Hilary was a "strong" leader, who other leaders would have taken seriously, unlike that fake little weakling Trump. That's Mussolini 101. The entire Putin cult of personality, which has even infected gullible conservatives in this country, Trump the most prominent among them, relies on the same premise to suggest that Putin was winning the new Cold War against Obama. I'm not sure I'm more surprised to see a professed Sanders supporter buying into that bullshit, or that you were using it, of all things, to suggest that Hilary would have been a better president than Trump foreign policy wise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 11:14
|
|
|
Thats the thing, sanctions very rarely lead to populations turning against their own governments, if anything they only lead to further support to the state. I saw more or less the same thing happen here in Russia. Back in 2012, the general attitude toward Putin/UR was far more negative and there was a general feeling of wanting some type of change to happen. By 2014/2015 that had evaporated completely and attitudes haven't changed sense. If anything the most dangerous period for a regime is when they have no one to blame (as in 2012/2013) for their failures, especially after a period of relative economic prosperity. Once you foreign pressure starts to be applied against regime, then it becomes very much a "us against them" situation. I am sure many North Koreans are secretly worried for the future, but the louder the US is and the more it presses for sanctions target the general population, the more it is going to almost certainly breed a siege mentality among the population. Let's be honest here, when a country is trying to possibly starve you through cutting off energy supplies, you are probably going to turn your anger against it even if your own government is brutal/corrupt. Oh yeah and Chinese/Russian exports to North Korea really haven't stopped in any meaningful sense. If anything it is a bizarre assumption is that sanctions have absolutely no political consequences. (Btw, I don't know why people concerned over human rights abuses in North Korea are also completely fine with trying to quite literally starve the population in submission. I mean what do you think the effect of cutting off nearly all fuel supplies to the country would be?) Ardennes fucked around with this message at 15:56 on Nov 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Thats the thing, sanctions very rarely lead to populations turning against their own governments, if anything they only lead to further support to the state. Man, it's almost like the intent of sanctions is to stunt the growth of opposing nations and has nothing to do with some fanciful goal of spurning a revolution that will bring positive change. It's almost like those nations who monopolize geopolitics have no interest in letting more competition in the door.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
Huzanko posted:Man, it's almost like the intent of sanctions is to stunt the growth of opposing nations and has nothing to do with some fanciful goal of spurning a revolution that will bring positive change. It's almost like those nations who monopolize geopolitics have no interest in letting more competition in the door. Yeah it's almost like international politics involves self interest and/or cynicism. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 15:59
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:Yeah it's almost like international politics involves self interest and/or cynicism. Yup, the real issue is the constant gas-lighting that is trying to tell us otherwise. If the broader discussion over North Korea was about brass-tack geopolitics, it would be far simpler and largely boil down to a growing rivalry between the US and China (and after-effects on their proxies/allies).
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
Is there any merit to this article? https://www.thenation.com/article/is-the-united-states-planning-to-attack-north-korea/
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
Willo567 posted:Is there any merit to this article? yes
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
counterpoint: no
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
Kerning Chameleon posted:counterpoint: no Beat me to it. Seriously, go look at the BBC for further evidence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
Willo567 posted:Is there any merit to this article? These articles have been popping up on pretty much a weekly basis for months now. Don't rely on them for anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 02:59
|
|
|
Willo567 posted:Is there any merit to this article? Betteridge's law of headlines applies here
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
jong-un and trump are both bluffing, isn't it obvious? yes, something could happen, just like it could with india and pakistan or saudi arabia and iran, but there's not going to be a war any time soon. this is all so masturbatory.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 05:20
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:Again, you are making the assumption that Trump's stupid tweets represent a significant break from existing American policy. They don't. So far everything he has done has been completely in line with what we've already been doing. He's just moved on from implicit threats to explicit threats. I've seen no evidence that anyone in the region considers this new distinction to be meaningful. Even Moon Jae-in, the one ally we would most likely expect to see react differently in such circumstances, continues to parrot the same America = Allies line that every South Korean leader elected or not has done since the Korean War. If you can't see the potential ramifications of a shift from implicit to explicit threats against North Korea by an American president, then I don't know what to say. No duh, the prospect of military conflict has always been in the background of everything involving the Korean peninsula since the armistice, but the preferred method for dealing with North Korea has generally been a bunch of diplomatic theater and economic pressure. I have no doubt that the military alliance between South Korea and the US would still be in effect if North Korea (hypothetically) attacked South Korea and the American "troop tripwire" was invoked, and that the US would respond, regardless of whatever nonsense Trump tweets out. But if Trump seems disinterested and in staying out of the command loop (or, conversely, he gets a war boner and tries to overrule the generals with his own horrible ideas of how a war should be conducted), then that looks pretty bad for the US as a geopolitical institution to rely upon. It means that the US military is operating with a disconnect from American civilian authority, or that South Korea has to work with a US military that is at odds with its know-nothing commander. I'm not coming at this from a short-term perspective. I'm trying to look at the geopolitical long-term here, and it's already a bad look on the US that Trump was elected and is doing so terribly (even for a Republican president) at being presidential. The damage is already done to our reputation, and it probably won't be repaired. It opens the door for China to start acting regionally (for now) and making overtures to South Korea and Japan to diminish their reliance on a foreign power thousands of miles away and tie themselves more with the local power who has a lot of might, more stable leader Some Guy TT posted:If you think North Korea is losing the propaganda war right now, I honestly don't know what to tell you. As far as I can tell the situation is going exactly the way they want. You yourself admit that war is fantastically unlikely at this juncture. LOL, they are absolutely losing the propaganda war. When, by sheer dumb luck, the US doesn't seem inclined to take their nuclear bait, then their self-imagine as ruthless, angry madmen collapses and they look like stupid assholes who are causing trouble for no reason. Remember that a key part of North Korea's "justification" for their nuclear program is that they're at war with the US, and the nukes exist as a means of repelling a US invasion or delivering the finishing blow to the US (depending on the day of the week it is, of course). When one side is claiming one thing, and the other side is showing itself (for the moment) to be otherwise, then that's an embarrassment for North Korea. Diplomatic theater - North Korea plays the villain, everyone swoops in to counter them, some political horse-trading goes on for North Korea to get something in exchange for not being a villain for a while, and then the curtain drops and the stage clears for an encore performance a few years down the line. Rinse and repeat. Some Guy TT posted:Now who's the one demanding a five hundred page treatise? All right all right, not you, I just couldn't resist pointing out the irony. I'm not asking for a treatise here. If nobody credible in South Korean political circles has any kind of plan or roadmap for changing the status of the US-South Korea military relationship, then I really don't get what all your talk about South Korean leftist sentiment and the like mattering is about? And my point is that while it's all well and good to be "YANKEE GO HOME!", if no candidate or party is seriously making it a plank of what they want to do if elected, then maybe it's a lot of spleen-venting anger, sound and fury signifying nothing? Either the US presence really is a constant issue of contention, regardless of what North Korea is doing, or it's a fairweather sentiment that doesn't really mean much when things look worrisome. Some Guy TT posted:Suffering is hard-baked into Korean culture. Even South Koreans have a concept of Han. The idea that life sucks and that they are going to forever be bullied by stronger neighbors or even incompetent governments is a strong one. All the same, Korea has not broken as a concept under much harsher invasion conditions in antiquity, let alone living memory, and I remain extremely skeptical that the North Koreans are going to break down and lose morale any day now when they've already made it this far. And on the other hand, even North Korea is pretty different from medieval Korea, and South Korea is even further from it than that. The fact that Korea is divided like it is today seems like proof enough of that, along with the apparent shying away from reunification as a major goal at this time. And again, it seems kind of dehumanizing on your part to argue that Korean cultural spirit will make them drink from the bitterest, foulest puddles of fate and accept it. Just because things have sucked for Koreans in the past, and just because that has maybe created a residual fatalistic outlook in the societies of both Koreas today, doesn't in turn mean that North Koreans are going to accept it repeatedly forever. I can see North Koreans suffering and struggling if they believe it will result in something better at some point in time. I don't see them accepting suffering if they don't have to, however. And do you know why Koreans (and lots of different groups around the world, for that matter) might have accepted that kind of suffering? Because transportation was slow, expensive, and potentially dangerous. Because they couldn't get an idea of what a destination would be like, even if they embarked on a desperate quest to reach it. Because a new location might mean a hard and risky year of trying to build shelter, plant crops, and survive until a harvest. It was safer to try and preserve your local status quo than it was to leave and maybe end up in the exact same situation (or worse) elsewhere. Some Guy TT posted:Dude, your post made explicit reference to how Hilary was a "strong" leader, who other leaders would have taken seriously, unlike that fake little weakling Trump. That's Mussolini 101. Well, again, absent other people chiming in to tone-police me on it, I think the problem is with you. Projection? As I've pointed out before, you seem to have this tendency to present people (or at least, Korean people) as dehumanized and abstract political objects rather than a collection of flesh-and-blood individuals with the same kinds of concerns, desires, and motivations of other people on this planet. If the Trumpstaffel came around and starting rounding people up to press them into conscription for a new Korean meatgrinder conflict, what would you do? And at this point in time, when everything (except for bad feelings) about the presidential election was settled on the matter of candidates, it pretty much came down to Clinton (who probably would have continued the status quo) and Trump (who is a reverse Midas, turning everything he's involved with into gold-painted poo poo). I'm not going to make claims about either having any kind of enlightened, good foreign policy. I just know which one, of the two, I would find most preferable to be dealing with the sorts of events that have happened since the inauguration back in January (it sure as gently caress is not Trump, to make that clear). I mean, the only line I can see you going with this is that it would all be about the same, and Thought experiment time: Are you posting to myself from the point-of-view of me being just another individual opinionated rear end in a top hat on the Internet? Or do you see yourself responding to me because at some level you believe I represent some collection of like-thinking people? Because my point in using the words I did is that national leaders (in my mind) view other national leaders the former way, even if those other leaders are technically supposed to represent the entire population of their particular nation. More or less one-on-one behind closed doors, national leaders aren't going to think that they're appealing to millions of regular citizens when they're talking to a fellow leader; they're going to think "This is the person with the power. This is the one I have to convince/win over/win against." They don't give a poo poo about you or I. We're not really in the back of their minds when they're talking about policy goals and trade agreements and the like. What leaders do think about is how to sell what they've agreed upon or decided to all those millions of manic monkeys back home and not have them hit other buttons at the polls (or much worse). So yes, under what I consider to be the prevailing calculus of many national leaders, they will assess their positions and those of other leaders and make judgments as to if those leaders are negotiating from a point of strength, or from a point of weakness. Trump is weak, because he has sown doubt as to the reliability of the United States as a power institution on the global stage (both now, but also over the long-term). The US gets less credence in its position now. And this wouldn't matter so much, if it wasn't for the fact that the US has been involved in this whole North Korea situation as an unresolved political legacy from decades ago. We're expected to take our seat at the table in this matter, because that's been our modus operandi and course of action since the Korean War stalemated, and between the state of the State Department and how badly Trump fits the presidential role, we're blowing it. Some Guy TT posted:The entire Putin cult of personality, which has even infected gullible conservatives in this country, Trump the most prominent among them, relies on the same premise to suggest that Putin was winning the new Cold War against Obama. I'm not sure I'm more surprised to see a professed Sanders supporter buying into that bullshit, or that you were using it, of all things, to suggest that Hilary would have been a better president than Trump foreign policy wise. Sorry I don't pigeonhole for you so readily?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
And you get a reply, too!Ardennes posted:Thats the thing, sanctions very rarely lead to populations turning against their own governments, if anything they only lead to further support to the state. I'm pretty sure there are significant political, economic, and military differences between Russia and North Korea, though. It doesn't strike me as a fruit-to-fruit comparison. Ardennes posted:If anything the most dangerous period for a regime is when they have no one to blame (as in 2012/2013) for their failures, especially after a period of relative economic prosperity. Once you foreign pressure starts to be applied against regime, then it becomes very much a "us against them" situation. On the other hand, if North Korea is so stable and secure internally, why are they running this nuclear weapons gambit? Especially when the expected response by the United States has been (in my eyes) kind of counter to what everyone would have expected. Ardennes posted:Oh yeah and Chinese/Russian exports to North Korea really haven't stopped in any meaningful sense. Sanctions absolutely do have political consequences, which is why you need good politicians. The US doesn't have those right now (BECAUSE WE NEVER DID IN THE FIRST PLACE *rimshot*). But everything political has consequences, anyway, and the pertinent consideration is what one party will get in exchange for the level of risk they're engaging in with a political action or position. If North Korea's nuclear displays are considered to be a grave international issue, then resolving that in some decisive matter where they're no longer considered an unknown threat (because everyone has them typecast as madmen marching the minute hands of the Doomsday Clock forward to be spiteful Commie assholes) is going to be the goal. A decisive conclusion could be an embargo or direct military action to try and force North Korea to surrender its nuclear program, it could be North Korea sheepishly standing down because no one seriously thinks they're going to nuke anyone of their own accord, it could be a diplomatic resolution that means North Korea gets to be a nuclear power, albeit one now held to MAD doctrine, and everyone begins developing contingency strategies. It comes down to what outcome is preferable and how far a nations or collection thereof is willing to go in order to realize it. Obviously, there's no 100% guarantee. And I suspect you're directing that humanitarian quip at me, to which I respond that so far as I can see, the plight of the North Korean people has been overshadowed by the nuclear nightmare. That seems to be the case in this thread, and it's probably the case elsewhere. It's also why many nations have been so willing to try and keep North Korea going on and contained to this point, despite its human rights abuses and the seeming complicity in them that keeping the regime going as it is entails. No one actually wants North Koreans to die or be killed by their government, but we're more interested in keeping them penned in and "not our problem". Both for material reasons and optics - South Korea and the US aren't going to want the optics of the inevitable human rights abuses and travesties caused by outside nations dealing with a collapsed North Korea. To be blunt: They've always been expendable pawns for North Korea and the other parties involved with them. Cannon fodder, a political cudgel by the West, and so on. It sucks, but that's the truth; it's the level that North Korea has helped to drag things down to, because it's ruled by the regime's smallscale self-interest rather than a unified, widescale national interest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
Kthulhu5000 posted:And you get a reply, too! I actually think as far as sanctions go, the results are usually quite similar. Also, the humanitarian quip wasn't directed to you but to anyone who actually thinks cutting off fuel supplies is a good idea. The nuclear gambit is the ultimate security against regime change and gives them considerable leverage. It also allows them to pare down their conventional military. That said my larger point is that any sanctions directed toward the population of the country (including a blockade) is its own type of human rights abuse and any moral standing evaporates. I honestly don't think anyone cares for the North Korean population, to be honest, but that includes the US. In all honesty, if the regime had treated its population far more fairly but remained a regime hostile to the US, we would probably be having the same discussion because nothing geopolitically speaking would have changed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 16:34 |
|
|
Ardennes posted:I actually think as far as sanctions go, the results are usually quite similar. Also, the humanitarian quip wasn't directed to you but to anyone who actually thinks cutting off fuel supplies is a good idea. I don't see how nukes actually allow them to pare down their conventional military. Most of their military is just a labor force - I doubt South Korea felt particularly threatened by the fact that hypothetically 5 million guys could slowly travel to the front to get torn up on foot. North Korea also can't really give up or not bother to replace things like their aircraft or land and sea military equipment much at all. So where's the savings on the conventional military meant to come in?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 01:28
|
|