|
Maybe be more specific. Ignoring North Korean human rights abuses because KSA is also a human rights nightmare doesn’t make sense. You can very much have problems with US ties to various countries without whitewashing or distracting from the DPRK’s human rights record.
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 14:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 19:52 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1006954388403998720?s=21 The Dems are a right wing party
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 14:05
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1006954388403998720?s=21
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 14:43
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Maybe be more specific. Ignoring North Korean human rights abuses because KSA is also a human rights nightmare doesn’t make sense. I am not ignoring North Korean human rights abuse simply because I don't shout about them every waking second possible in this thread like most of you Tourette's afflicted idiots. That you keep trying to make every single conversation about that subject, no matter how tangential, just goes to show how morally bankrupt your arguments really are and how little your supposed concern for human rights abuses is connected to any action that might actually solve them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 15:21
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:I am not ignoring North Korean human rights abuse simply because I don't shout about them every waking second possible in this thread like most of you Tourette's afflicted idiots. That you keep trying to make every single conversation about that subject, no matter how tangential, just goes to show how morally bankrupt your arguments really are and how little your supposed concern for human rights abuses is connected to any action that might actually solve them. I think you have me confused with someone else. IIRC, it’s the first time I’ve mentioned human rights abuses in this thread. It’s possible I mentioned it months ago? But nice name-calling before you make poo poo up. Makes you sound very smart and good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 15:28
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:I think you have me confused with someone else. IIRC, it’s the first time I’ve mentioned human rights abuses in this thread. It’s possible I mentioned it months ago? mlmp08 posted:Did I write death camp? This is the second post on the most recent page of your question mark. May 1st, if you want to be a pedant. I don't blame you for taking that approach honestly. Way easier to whine about how I'm being mean to you than addressing the actual substance of my post, which is how the actions you advocate for have gently caress-all to do with actually improving the lives of the North Korean people you claim to care about so dearly. Like all right, fine, you're better than the dude who wanted to rape Kim Jong-eun with a bayonet. What do you want, a medal for meeting the bare minimum standards of human decency? edit: actually you know what, I apologize. You've been doing a very good job of not actually stating a specific opinion most of the time. You just pop in and make snarky remarks about how people on both sides of the debate are equally dumb. Clearly this is not behavior worthy of mockery or insult, especially when you admit that you suck at interpreting other people's posts. Some Guy TT fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Jun 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 15:57
|
|
|
Hahaha wow. What a grudge. I mentioned human rights twice in six weeks! Literally the essence of my being.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 16:07
|
|
|
I am impressed that you care so little. Really I am. How about you do the rest of us a favor and care so little that you gently caress out of this thread forever, and never come back?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 16:09
|
|
|
I’m impressed that you care about my posts so much and. Means a lot to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 16:11
|
|
|
Are you going to stop with the faux witty bullshit and actually state an opinion? Because as far as I can tell the only actual opinions you have are about military weebooism. For awhile I thought you wanted to talk about North Korean media reporting. But wow, you dropped that subject like a hot potato when I asked you to put up or shut up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 16:14
|
|
|
Why don't we discuss the question of whether we should stick to not talking to North Korea because of its human rights abuses, even if that results in a worse outcome for the North Korean people at least in the short time, but in a slightly less snarky fashion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 16:17
|
|
|
I propose a DMZ in the Korean peninsula thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 16:18
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:
Here’s how I found KCNA reporting: I googled it plus the words “English translation.” That is my amazing secret of how I read the KCNA reporting in English. If you put as much effort into informing yourself as you do into personal attacks, there’d be more worthwhile discussion to be had with you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 16:19
|
|
|
Maybe go back to the Firing Range. We're trying to debate and discuss in here.mystes posted:Why don't we discuss the question of whether we should stick to not talking to North Korea because of its human rights abuses, even if that results in a worse outcome for the North Korean people at least in the short time, but in a slightly less snarky fashion. The main problem with this reasoning that I see is that we've been using human rights abuses as an excuse not to deal with North Korea for a very long time now, rationalizing that in the long term the North Korean people will benefit more from it. The problem is, we're at the long term now. Those human rights abuses have gone on unabated for decades now, and by refusing to offer North Korea anything, we've effectively ceded any influence we could possibly have over making them change it. Now in my obviously diseased cynical mind, this is because our leaders do not and never did care about the North Korean people, and that all this talk of abuse has only ever been soft propaganda intended for distribution in the capitalist sphere. Whether or not it's even true barely even matters, because the American government has never been willing to negotiate on those terms, sticking solely to the nuke issue. That's part of what makes all these attacks on Trumps for not sticking it to Kim Jong-eun on human rights so weird. That's never actually been important as far as our own interests are concerned.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 16:25
|
|
|
mystes posted:Why don't we discuss the question of whether we should stick to not talking to North Korea because of its human rights abuses, even if that results in a worse outcome for the North Korean people at least in the short time, but in a slightly less snarky fashion. Here’s my fantasy scenario that I don’t think can happen now, but it would be pretty great. Offer KJU and other key leaders and family members golden parachutes to live out their lives in relative luxury and safety. Unfair as it may seem, rather than pursuing punitive justice for the human rights abuses, use a model closer to the truth and reconciliation process used in South Africa. Then massive financial aid and humanitarian aid to minimize power struggles and humanitarian crisis. This would require great expenditure and a lot of time but would avoid a bloody war or fifty plus more years of lovely tensions. Do I think it’s realistic? Probably not. KJU may well not take the deal, and people obsessed with punishment vs “least-worst” would find it awful to let KJU off the hook, so to speak. E: not to mention the power struggle of who helps rebuild the government and in what image. Golden parachutes for despots reeks of being unfair or rewarding bad behavior to many, but the end result could reduce human suffering in total. mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Jun 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 16:33
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:That's part of what makes all these attacks on Trumps for not sticking it to Kim Jong-eun on human rights so weird. That's never actually been important as far as our own interests are concerned. https://twitter.com/radleybalko/status/1006607433781972993 Though I'll admit the issue is mostly symbolic, and although the symbolism is telling, it's telling us something about Trump we already knew.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 16:33
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Here’s my fantasy scenario that I don’t think can happen now, but it would be pretty great. This idea sounds terrible. I'm not insulting you or anything, I mean that objectively speaking this is an awful outcome that's completely unsellable to anyone on either side of the DMZ which is why it's never gained any traction even though it's probably the closest thing to a "compromise" the United States has ever been willing to consider pre-Trump. A big reason why reunification is so popular in South Korea right now is that Moon Jae-in's formulation (which was originally Kim Dae-jung's formulation) is that by cooperating with North Korea both countries can actually make a lot of money, with the main necessary initial investment just being an infrastructure project for the North. South Korea gains a land route to markets in China and Europe (via rail) if they have access to North Korean land. That's just one example that would easily cause a massive boom to the economies of both Koreas. So instead of spending money for reunification, the project pays for itself. Likewise, by making Kim Jong-eun a partner rather than an enemy to be removed, all of a sudden the problem of what to do with him post reunification becomes way easier. Dude probably just retires to tend a flower garden or something. He might face criminal charges eventually, but you have to remember- when South Korea stopped being a dictatorship, there was no truth and reconciliation. This was the main undercurrent that sparked the populist demand to put the last two presidents in jail, because everyone was promised that the bad stuff would end but the fascists just went back to the same dirty tricks any time they acquired any of their old power. North Korean Communists could easily avert this by just, well, stop doing the bad stuff they do that's already unpopular. Whatever it is. Like, one of the major problems with identifying the state of North Korean is we really have no idea how popular the North Korean regime is. All we know is that most defectors are economic migrants and that there's no apparent opposition political movements, open or secret. It's entirely possible that North Koreans just wouldn't care what happens to Kim, for the same reason most Americans don't care what happens to our political criminals. They figure whatever people he screwed over probably had it coming, and if he's out of power now and can't hurt anyone, why bother? Silver2195 posted:https://twitter.com/radleybalko/status/1006607433781972993 Yeah I know in the back of my head that this stuff is bad. It's just easy to forget sometimes, because you know Obama and Bush told themselves the same bullshit about whatever assholes they met on their foreign trips, they just had the sense not to say it out loud.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 16:57
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:This idea sounds terrible. I'm not insulting you or anything, I mean that objectively speaking this is an awful outcome that's completely unsellable to anyone on either side of the DMZ which is why it's never gained any traction even though it's probably the closest thing to a "compromise" the United States has ever been willing to consider pre-Trump. Mine was a fantasy scenario. The above scenario in which reunification just happens, the whole of unified Korea adopts the ROK economic model, and KJU steps down to retire with no security agreement or immunity is a super-fantasy scenario. And we know there has been some political movement/scheming, but that tends to be a good way to end up at best, a pariah or just secretly pining with no action, and at worst, killed or imprisoned, including familial punishment by association.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 17:05
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Here’s how I found KCNA reporting: I googled it plus the words “English translation.” fruits of meager labor, now that i'm not on a phone. quote:“President Trump appreciated that an atmosphere of peace and stability was created on the Korean Peninsula and in the region, although distressed with the extreme danger of armed clash only a few months ago, thanks to the proactive peace-loving measures taken by the respected Supreme Leader from the outset of this year,” said a summary of the leaders’ summit by the North’s state-run Korean Central News Agency (KCNA). quote:The North’s state media framed Tuesday’s summit as a win for Pyongyang as it listed concessions made by Trump, with North Korea’s official party newspaper Rodong Sinmun dubbing the summit in Singapore “the meeting of the century” on its front page. There was a line by line translation on Twitter that I found yesterday, but it's no longer a top hit and  reply is not edit...
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 17:14
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Mine was a fantasy scenario. I didn't say anything about the unified Korea adopting the ROK economic model. I just wrote that reunification is being sold in the short term as a project of infrastructure and reconciliation. I would anticipate a model based on the Koryo Confederation, which would probably take several decades to finish and at the end of which Kim Jong-eun would probably just be a tired old man who's sick of politics and has been raising his children not to expect that they're going to get to be chairman. As to their economic model then? Who the gently caress knows. We might not even have the same model that far ahead. Assuming reconciliation doesn't happen I'd actually wager North Korea is the more likely country of the two to have the same political system in say 2050, because South Korea has always been the more historically volatile country. We're only two years removed from the Candlelight Protests. North Korea hasn't had any kind of political moment even approaching that level of revolution in the last seventy years, including bad times far worse than anything South Korea has had to endure. quote:And we know there has been some political movement/scheming, but that tends to be a good way to end up at best, a pariah or just secretly pining with no action, and at worst, killed or imprisoned, including familial punishment by association. Do you have any specific examples? The key word there was opposition political movements. Attempts to wrest power from within the Communist Party itself (or the military) are really not relevant to these calculations because it's not like those people would be any better than Kim Jong-eun. Honestly they'd probably be much, much worse. mlmp08 posted:fruits of meager labor, now that i'm not on a phone. Yeah, as expected the problem with most North Korean reporting is that it's pretty boring. Which can be a bit of a rude shock when you're trained to think of them just saying and doing crazy poo poo all the time because that's what our soft propaganda makes it sounds like they do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 17:21
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:Do you have any specific examples? Usually one is engaged in political activity prior to becoming a political prisoner. I don't believe that all North Koreans are part of a hive-mind or unthinking drones. Here is a UN report detailing all the types of activity, either political or politically adjacent, that the DPRK punishes: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/CoIDPRK/Pages/ReportoftheCommissionofInquiryDPRK.aspx
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 17:31
|
|
|
mystes posted:Why don't we discuss the question of whether we should stick to not talking to North Korea because of its human rights abuses, even if that results in a worse outcome for the North Korean people at least in the short time, but in a slightly less snarky fashion. Dude, my dude, I don't think there are even any people itt who are opposed to actual talks with NK. But who cares, right? Just make up some bullshit strawman, poo poo out some snarky drive by poo poo post& jerk off in the mirror. Life of kings
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 18:01
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/TimothyS/status/1007374478903521280
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 22:53
|
|
|
It must be really weird to be a South Korean with this poo poo going on. Like, I can't even think of an American parallel to having allegedly allied reporters following you around as you cover peace talks just shouting "NO!!! WAR!!!! WE WANT WAR!!!! COWARDS!!!" and weirdly expecting you to be on their side.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 23:17
|
|
|
“The US signed a peace treaty with North Korea and got NOTHING in return!” — US liberals, soon, probably
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 00:44
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:Like, I can't even think of an American parallel to having allegedly allied reporters following you around as you cover peace talks just shouting "NO!!! WAR!!!! WE WANT WAR!!!! COWARDS!!!" and weirdly expecting you to be on their side. I've yet to see a single US news org advocate war. Some individuals, including Bolton, have been very hawkish, but that hasn't been put forth by any news agency I'm aware of. That said, I would agree that the US media tends to label any occurrence that is politically unusual, unexpected, etc as bumbling, unstable, or otherwise dangerous.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 01:00
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:“The US signed a peace treaty with North Korea and got NOTHING in return!” Yes, sending the message that nuclear proliferation is wholly beneficial to a tyrannical state is probably a bad move. Ha ha ha, oh, those liberals!
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 03:11
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:I've yet to see a single US news org advocate war. Some individuals, including Bolton, have been very hawkish, but that hasn't been put forth by any news agency I'm aware of. The entire argument of "My god it was DISGUSTING to see the US flag and the NK flag together" is "these savages can't be treated like our peers" and in the conversation of "how do we resolve tensions with a nuclear power" that basically means "and so they must be brought to heel with force". There's no other options, we either resume ignoring them entirely, treat them as our 'peer' and talk to them, or we blow them up and decimate Korea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 03:51
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:I've yet to see a single US news org advocate war. Some individuals, including Bolton, have been very hawkish, but that hasn't been put forth by any news agency I'm aware of. Much like you the US media doesn't like taking clear proactive positions on what they think constitutes a good idea because aside from peace talks the only other actions are to continue sanctions or advocate for war. The first one has already failed, and was ethically questionable to begin with, and the second one is completely indefensible. So they're limited to just throwing shade on any other ideas. Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:Dude, my dude, I don't think there are even any people itt who are opposed to actual talks with NK. But who cares, right? Just make up some bullshit strawman, poo poo out some snarky drive by poo poo post& jerk off in the mirror. Life of kings Hence why this has become the standard operating pattern of the thread. Because talks are the only defensible position, and Trump is pushing for talks, it becomes necessary to twist into logical contortions to pretend like the talks are bad when in reality they're our only remaining option. Tacky-rear end Rococco posted:Yes, sending the message that nuclear proliferation is wholly beneficial to a tyrannical state is probably a bad move. Ha ha ha, oh, those liberals! This post is a good example of the trend. I doubt Tacky-rear end Rococco would, if pressed, actually admit to believing that the talks are terrible, or strongly advocate for any other option. Hence the hand-wringing about how awful it is that Trump is making nuclear proliferation look good, quietly ignoring the fact that three president's worth of bad foreign policy positions on North Korea (two of them liberals) are what got us into this mess, and Trump's at least trying to get us out of the hole instead of keeping up with the digging.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 04:08
|
|
|
I do appreciate the "New Left" is all about getting into another Iraq or Afghanistan. How DARE we sit down with NK?!?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 04:09
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:Much like you the US media doesn't like taking clear proactive positions on what they think constitutes a good idea because aside from peace talks the only other actions are to continue sanctions or advocate for war. The first one has already failed, and was ethically questionable to begin with, and the second one is completely indefensible. So they're limited to just throwing shade on any other ideas. Talks are bad right now because the president is a senile lunatic who’s easily manipulated and may torpedo everything at any given moment because the last guy in the room was Bolton.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 04:15
|
|
|
So what, we should wait another eight years so we can get a president with more political capital? That attitude is how we got stuck with Trump in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 04:21
|
|
|
There's really nothing ethically dubious about sanctions; when you're dealing with belligerent states that is your only option other than military maneuvers. Unless you're saying in this specific instance they're questionable? Though that also implies that they would have been willing to come to the table previous to this, which I doubt KJU would have done up until this point (due to the behind the scenes power solidification he has been doing for the last 4+ years).
Grapplejack fucked around with this message at 04:35 on Jun 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 04:33
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:This post is a good example of the trend. I doubt Tacky-rear end Rococco would, if pressed, actually admit to believing that the talks are terrible, or strongly advocate for any other option. Hence the hand-wringing about how awful it is that Trump is making nuclear proliferation look good, quietly ignoring the fact that three president's worth of bad foreign policy positions on North Korea (two of them liberals) are what got us into this mess, and Trump's at least trying to get us out of the hole instead of keeping up with the digging. chitoryu12 posted:Talks are bad right now because the president is a senile lunatic who’s easily manipulated and may torpedo everything at any given moment because the last guy in the room was Bolton. What that guy said. I want to see the American empire dismantled, hopefully without widespread nuclear proliferation as a consequence. You calling that hand-wringing reveals a fundamental unseriousness on your part.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 04:38
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:There's really nothing ethically dubious about sanctions; when you're dealing with belligerent states that is your only option other than military maneuvers. Unless you're saying in this specific instance they're questionable? Though that also implies that they would have been willing to come to the table previous to this, which I doubt KJU would have done up until this point (due to the behind the scenes power solidification he has been doing for the last 4+ years). I guess except for the fact that they almost always harm the average people while the wealthy and powerful can buy their way around them yea sanctions rule
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 04:59
|
|
|
What is the bad thing that could happen if Trump signs a peace treaty and gets bamboozled by the devious North Koreans. What is the nightmare scenario. Moon Jae-in and a sizable majority of Koreans seem really happy with it so far. I don't think they are all also afflicted by syphilitic madness, but their perspectives aren't valued by Americans and are almost completely absent in American media.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 05:06
|
|
|
Tacky-rear end Rococco posted:What that guy said. I want to see the American empire dismantled, hopefully without widespread nuclear proliferation as a consequence. You calling that hand-wringing reveals a fundamental unseriousness on your part. That's a very curious set of dual goals you have there, considering the extent to which the American empire justifies its existence by claiming they are the Besides that, if you want the American empire dismantled and no nuclear proliferation, I'd think you'd be jumping for joy at what we've heard so far. No nukes, no military exercises, and a possible military withdrawal. Even bearing in mind the likelihood that these promises fall through, that's an infinitely more appealing scenario than just having the American empire and the North Korean nuclear program continue to expand indefinitely.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 05:11
|
|
|
patonthebach posted:I do appreciate the "New Left" is all about getting into another Iraq or Afghanistan. How DARE we sit down with NK?!? Please don’t call centrist Democrats who watch MSNBC all day the “New Left” they don’t even call themselves that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 05:13
|
|
|
These are the adults in the room and since Drumpf violated the flag code and saluted a Korean general, this is nothing but a humiliation for the American Empire - and also for some reason, that would be a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 05:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 19:52 |
|
|
Jesus christ people, it's not that talking to NK is bad, it's that Trump can't talk with Trudeau without creating a huge incident so entrusting this task to the administration of Donald "Nuclear Button" Trump and John "Libya Model" Bolton is loving terrifying.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 09:08
|
|