|
Raenir Salazar posted:there's a positive historical relationship This is not the way the vast majority of modern Koreans see it. However you wanna characterize the history of Sino-Korean relationships in the pre-Modern era, whatever there was back then has completely evaporated over the past 150 years and when it's relevant at all in the present day it's just as often perceived in a negative light. Also like everyone else here I don't really know how the PRC would actually view a unified Korea but I'm definitely not as firm on them seeing it as an unequivocally good thing as the rest of you seem to be. Also lol @ "the Japanese will of course reemerge dominant in Korea, as is the natural state of affairs," jesus.
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 01:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 15:45 |
|
|
Koramei posted:Also lol @ "the Japanese will of course reemerge dominant in Korea, as is the natural state of affairs," jesus. Uh, that last part is a nearly obscene misinterpretation of what I wrote, when I just meant it as "They're a large economy nearby of course they have economic influence in Korea" because they already do? Based on context of the US-Canada example I used? How is this objectionable? As for historical relationships, they matter in the abstract for similar reasons as to memes do; Canadians still make jokes about 1812 w.r.t the US; Anglo-US historical partnerships matter. Just as how German militerism matters as to why the EU has problems deciding its future today. All historical previous relationships matter in the present day; to varying degrees. Maybe I'm overemphasizing Ming-Korean relations during the Sino-Korean invasion under Hideyoshi as to how much that historical client state status affects present relations with the PRC but it does have meaning; it's a data-point, not the end all be all. Additionally, the last 150 years I'm not sure what you mean. 150 years was European imperialism in Asia in which China lost its influence and became a colonized state; there isn't anything during that period that puts China at odds with Korea; the Korean war is "China" helping "Korea" to some extent if you account for cold war ideology; there haven't been border skirmishes like between China-Russia, China-Vietnam, China-India; no island dickwaving like China-Japan or China-Philippines no sabre-rattling like China-Taiwan, no ethnic tension like China-Mongolia, or China-Central Asia; no territorial disputes like China-Pakistan/India but even Pakistan is on friendly terms with China and that basically sufficiently disproves the assertion that China is incapable of forming working relationships with other nations in its backyard. Ignoring of course that there WERE decades in which China did play nice with Vietnam, India, Mongolia, Russia, etc even Japan under Mao! China has like, some issues with Korea regarding THAAD, but it's Japan Korea has territorial disputes with (and technically their brothers to the north). If you're trying to say that China is incapable of having a working relationship with a unified Korea under Seoul, that is to me requiring a higher standard of proof to prove than that they can (Considering that they do currently do have what as a layman observer seems like a positive working relationship).
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 01:53
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Also lol @ "the Japanese will of course reemerge dominant in Korea, as is the natural state of affairs," jesus. I didn’t say that. I don’t think Japan would be ‘dominant’ in this hypothetical Korea, I just think it would probably act to maximize its own interests at the expense of Korea in a cynical and realpolitikal way, untethered as it would be from the joint alliance with the USA icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 02:23 on Jun 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 02:14
|
|
|
I'm sure they will, just like the Koreans will try to maximize their own interests too. It's pretty presumptive to assume who'll come out on top though, or even that it'd have to be adversarial. e: also no hard feelings dude (to both of you), I did come off a bit stronger than I meant. I've read a shitload of hot takes on Korea over the past couple of weeks though and it's getting to me a bit.Raenir Salazar posted:Uh, that last part is a nearly obscene misinterpretation of what I wrote, when I just meant it as "They're a large economy nearby of course they have economic influence in Korea" because they already do? Based on context of the US-Canada example I used? How is this objectionable? Oh sorry that wasn't at you, more this and another post I can't be bothered going back to find: icantfindaname posted:Frankly if the USA pulled out of East Asia or pulled back Chinese hostility toward Japan would probably decrease and they might very well team up in re-imperializing the Koreans, if not formally and explicitly then tacitly. quote:As for historical relationships, they matter in the abstract for similar reasons as to memes do; Canadians still make jokes about 1812 w.r.t the US; Anglo-US historical partnerships matter. Just as how German militerism matters as to why the EU has problems deciding its future today. All historical previous relationships matter in the present day; to varying degrees. Maybe I'm overemphasizing Ming-Korean relations during the Sino-Korean invasion under Hideyoshi as to how much that historical client state status affects present relations with the PRC but it does have meaning; it's a data-point, not the end all be all. I remember your posts about the Imjin War in the milhist thread so I'm guessing that's at the forefront of your mind, but Ming intervention in that is not really relevant to today at all. For "memes affecting relationships," Koreans today are just as likely to think back to the Tang trying to subsume Silla or the Sui invading Goguryeo as they are to anything positive in Sino-Korean relations, for the 1% of situations that historical relationships like this are thought of at all. In fact, Koreans wrestling with creating an indigenous national narrative and so trying to fight against the Western perception (thanks Japan) of being nothing more than "a pale imitation of China" has been much more relevant to them for the past century, hence this: quote:Additionally, the last 150 years I'm not sure what you mean. It's when Western ideas (as well as the Qing trying to redefine their tributary relationship with Joseon to be more than nominal, and their defeat in the Sino-Japanese war and so on) started dramatically influencing Korean national discourse. The start of modern nationalism there basically, which has been a fairly prominent force in Korea ever since and isn't something that tends to mesh well with China's influence there historically. Although it is easy to overstate how relevant that is in the real world. quote:If you're trying to say that China is incapable of having a working relationship with a unified Korea under Seoul, that is to me requiring a higher standard of proof to prove than that they can (Considering that they do currently do have what as a layman observer seems like a positive working relationship). Positive is relative, if you look at last year; the THAAD protests shook a lot of Koreans, although who knows if that'll actually mean anything down the line. Anyway I wasn't trying to say they're incapable of having a positive relationship at all, just that you guys are coming to some overly firm conclusions for stuff none of us know poo poo about.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 02:27
|
|
|
Koramei posted:I'm sure they will, just like the Koreans will try to maximize their own interests too. It's pretty presumptive to assume who'll come out on top though, or even that it'd have to be adversarial. e: also no hard feelings dude (to both of you), I did come off a bit stronger than I meant. I've read a shitload of hot takes on Korea over the past couple of weeks though and it's getting to me a bit. I didn't mean to imply anything like that. I'm saying that a neutral, unified Korea without American backing would objectively be in a bad geopolitical situation, and that both China and Japan would probably act in an (even) more cynical and exploitative way toward the country than they do now. China and Japan are bigger countries than South Korea even if you add the North to it, for Japan particularly in a scenario where Japan kept the American alliance. There's no implication of moral sanction there, I don't think Japan would be morally superior at all. I'm not sure where you're getting that, and I also don't see how this is orientalist in any way, certainly not towards Korea. Every country on the planet would act in that way. It's just a cynical take in general, there's nothing particular to Korea or East Asia that makes it any different. My point is just that Korea moving away from the United States is probably not in Korea's interest, because its relations with its immediate neighbors would probably (continue to) not be very good, and so therefore it's very useful for them to have a powerful external patron that doesn't have as big a direct interest in good relations with Korea's neighbors/rivals. Although the US does have some interest there obviously, it's much better than nothing IMO. Again, this does not make Japan, or China, morally superior. icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 04:23 on Jun 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 03:37
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Oh sorry that wasn't at you, more this and another post I can't be bothered going back to find: Gotcha, no problem. I am just saying that for the reasons I've outlined I think it's non-trivially possible for the PRC to have decent-ish relations with a unified Korea; the attainably plausible goal is possibly "Finlandization". Of which noted former Russian possession Finland, was successfully made into a neutral buffer state under what is arguably a far worse recent historical relationship of antagonism. If it was possible there with them, then it feels more plausible between PRC-Unified Korea especially when factoring in the new economic dependence (i.e to keep the North Korean economy running, keep the current contracts and trade with the PRC on auto-pilot while negotiating for investment money for Korean Reconstruction).
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 03:43
|
|
|
Sure, relations can change. Personally I don't think Korea and Japan (or even China and Japan) are necessarily gonna be eternal rivals either; WW2's memory seems strong today but it's all fading, who knows what'll happen in a few decades, especially if America implodes.icantfindaname posted:I didn't mean to imply anything like that. I'm saying that a neutral, unified Korea without American backing would objectively be in a bad geopolitical situation, and that both China and Japan would probably act in an (even) more cynical and exploitative way toward the country than they do now. There's no implication of moral sanction there, I don't think Japan would be morally superior. I'm not sure where you're getting that, and I also don't know how this is orientalist in any way, certainly not towards Korea. Every country on the planet would act in that way. It's just a cynical take in general, there's nothing particular to Korea or East Asia that makes it any different I didn't mean morally superior, just the implication that Japanese companies and institutions will naturally triumph over Korean and dominate them if Korea's protector isn't in the way; that's echoing a lot of old takes on Korean history, and the way you're phrasing it kind of implies that the Koreans would have no agency of their own in this future situation. Admittedly I'm getting weirdly hung up over a couple of words in some forum posts and I can totally see how you intended it differently; I definitely agree that severing the alliance isn't in Korea's interest, although I also think it's not in Japan's either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 03:55
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Sure, relations can change. Personally I don't think Korea and Japan (or even China and Japan) are necessarily gonna be eternal rivals either; WW2's memory seems strong today but it's all fading, who knows what'll happen in a few decades, especially if America implodes. That's true of every small country in the world that's squeezed between bigger powers though. I don't mean to provoke nationalist hostility but the shrimp among whales stuff seems to me just objectively true. It was the same for Belgium, it's the same for Syria and Iraq. That doesn't mean those countries don't have agency I am sort of assuming that Japan and the USA don't fall off a cliff though. If Korea does well and those countries don't this will matter a lot less. Korea is also bigger and wealthier than Syria or Iraq or Belgium obviously, it's not that small. And of course it could be that China Japan and Korea leave the past behind them and reconcile with each other, but like I said this is a cynical take
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 04:22
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Gotcha, no problem. Of course Finland got 10% of itself lopped off by Russia (who needed a buffer for their buffer) in a brutal and wholly fabricated war not long after independence. Then had to kowtow to the Soviets for decades including huge amounts of direct interference in domestic politics for, so maybe that's not an example many places aspire to emulate. To this day Finland's military is pretty much entirely geared towards opposing an invasion by Russia. Edit: Korea also isn't really useful as a buffer anyways and everyone from Mongolia to Vietnam seems to agree that contemporary Chinese influence tends to be super bad for the locals unless you're positioned to take advantage of graft and corruption opportunities. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 05:32 on Jun 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 05:25
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:Of course Finland got 10% of itself lopped off by Russia (who needed a buffer for their buffer) in a brutal and wholly fabricated war not long after independence. Then had to kowtow to the Soviets for decades including huge amounts of direct interference in domestic politics for, so maybe that's not an example many places aspire to emulate. Wasn't that bad tho, compared to other outcomes. And opposing a Russian invasion wasn't really in anyone's political plans during the Cold War, considering the US firmly viewed Finland as part of the Soviet camp and had nukes aimed at us all the time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 10:09
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Wasn't that bad tho, compared to other outcomes. Well, Finnish nuetrality wasn't really nuetrality at the time. The USSR could get pretty much whatever they wanted out of Finland and made sure to demonstrate it periodically - the West absolutely could not. It certainly could have been worse, but it wasn't really a great outcome compared to many, either. It's just that Finland wasn't really in a position to pursue any better outcomes. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 13:00 on Jun 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 12:52
|
|
|
The parallel falls apart due to the fact that European politics weren't unified during 1939 into 2 opposing camps, and Finland was largely left lending for itself with some donated or bought equipment. It is clear that Japan/US and China would be in direct opposition with each other, and thus would seek to curry favor with a neutral Korea (which in all honesty would probably start to rival Japan in a few decades).
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 13:01
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:It's completely insane. People have watched a pathological liar and conmen lie every single day for over a year and a half. Sometimes even lie for absolutely no discernable reason about the smallest things. They have watched him act in the most anti-worker, hawkish and dishonest manner possible. They have watched him hire Pruitt, DeVos, Sessions or Bolton. And still, after all this, people genuinely consider that he might legalize weed, negotiate with NK or protect American workers. A huge part of the population has completely disconnected from observable reality. one of those things is not like the others: negotiating with the dprk allows him to project an image of himself as peacemaker and a legendary figure in american politics. this is a rare moment when the interests of the world and trump's ego coincide. trump's iran policy is aggressive because obama made a deal. with the dprk there isn't a deal to rip up so he's making one instead. no one is under any illusions here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 14:34
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:no one is under any illusions here. Well, Trump is, but whether that's due to his media bubble or the activity of the brain spiders is for history (and probably a medical professional) to decide.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 18:40
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:one of those things is not like the others: negotiating with the dprk allows him to project an image of himself as peacemaker and a legendary figure in american politics. this is a rare moment when the interests of the world and trump's ego coincide. trump's iran policy is aggressive because obama made a deal. with the dprk there isn't a deal to rip up so he's making one instead. no one is under any illusions here. When are these hypothetical negotiations supposed to take place? Why didn't they happen at the summit or before? Are they going to happen within a year? Maybe after the election? Are you considering voting for him because of the hope or at least not voting against him? It's a textbook scam. This is like hoping that your Nigerian prince money will arrive one day, if you just send a little bit more. There is no money.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 19:44
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:When are these hypothetical negotiations supposed to take place? Why didn't they happen at the summit or before? Are they going to happen within a year? Maybe after the election? Are you considering voting for him because of the hope or at least not voting against him? It's a textbook scam. This is like hoping that your Nigerian prince money will arrive one day, if you just send a little bit more. There is no money. Because 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
It's been a week since the summit happened and it's already the greatest failure in the history of failures for failing to instantaneously solve the Korean standoff. Whereas our previous Korea policy, which failed at every single one of its stated objectives and never had so much as the illusion of progress, is something we should go back to because any decade now North Korea will collapse as a result of sanctions. But hell, if you're accusing R. Guyovich of being a closet Trump voter I doubt there's anything I could do to convince you. This article from The Atlantic pointing that so far there haven't actually been any downsides from the policy shift probably won't do any good either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 04:44
|
|
|
Trump's stated policies are best modeled by a stochastic process which tends towards shittiness. Going "weeeeeeee!" after the results of the past six weeks is like going "weeeeeeee!" when Bitcoin suddenly shoots up a thousand bucks: if you won't (in this case, can't) liquidate immediately, the gains are purely on paper. It's not even that Trump could turn on a dime, which he's done repeatedly. It's also that Trump decided to withdraw from the UN Human Rights Council at the same time he decided to put pictures of KJU on the walls of the White House. He probably only has two and a half years to achieve momentous results, after which the next president is likely to repudiate everything he's done. With regards to concrete details about communications with NK this is unwise, but given how pathetic and sycophantic Trump has been with KJU, it's perfectly understandable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 06:49
|
|
|
Trump did a different thing in Korea, therefore it's good! Why won't you give Trump a chance? asks the self-proclaimed True Leftist in the Room, as Trump literally throws children in concentration camps. This is some real dumb poo poo, built on the fallacy that just because the status quo is bad, anything that tries to replace it must be better. Fascists somehow always win over some of the dumbest lefties in the room by making the odd swerve away from the conservative consensus - never mind that what the fascists have in mind is almost always even worse. But go ahead and keep on flogging that straw man that everyone who thinks Trump is dumb in Korea wants atomic apocalypse, as opposed to the more likely explanation that they've seen anything Trump has done before. Also: Tacky-rear end Rococco posted:Going "weeeeeeee!" after the results of the past six weeks is like going "weeeeeeee!" when Bitcoin suddenly shoots up a thousand bucks. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 19:53
|
|
|
You revived a thread that's been dormant for two weeks to post that crap? I thought someone wanted to discuss news. But then I guess the usual "grainy satellite footage proves that North Korea is cheating on a deal that doesn't actually exist yet" from the mainstream media doesn't quite reenforce your point of how Trump is the real monster for at least attempting to reach a peace agreement before going back to the previous morally sound policy of forcing regime change by starving children to death.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 02:18
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:You revived a thread that's been dormant for two weeks to post that crap? I thought someone wanted to discuss news. But then I guess the usual "grainy satellite footage proves that North Korea is cheating on a deal that doesn't actually exist yet" from the mainstream media doesn't quite reenforce your point of how Trump is the real monster for at least attempting to reach a peace agreement before going back to the previous morally sound policy of forcing regime change by starving children to death. Indeed let's go that topic of deal's that don't exist yet. Absolutely nothing has been accomplished at all on the peninsula, despite all the hype from a few weeks ago. Trump has never attempted to reach a peace agreement, he just wanted people to pay attention to him, the man's barely capable of understanding what a Korea is. If you sincerely believe he sought any sort of peace other than the peace of the bomb crater, you're as naive as anyone who actually voted for Trump.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 03:01
|
|
|
There's no military exercises and no nuclear tests. There are now active negotiations with China and Russia and both Koreas for economic development projects, most prominently expanding the trans-Siberian railroad into the Korean peninsula. South Korea and North Korea are fielding merged sports teams, and South Korea is planning to launch a joint bid with North Korea (and Japan and China) to host the 2030 World Cup. North Korea just agreed to restart family reunions. Pompeo's going to North Korea in the next few weeks, and there might be a second summit between Trump and Kim come September. During all of this, negotiations continue. I don't know about you, but I like this status quo a hell of a lot more than last year's pontificating about whether Trump's going to declare war via Twitter. Is this why the thread had a two week lull? You're all so dead set on the whole "nothing has actually changed" talking point you're simply pretending like new developments aren't happening?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 03:50
|
|
|
Well, outwardly no, nothing has happened. There might be negotiations behind the scenes, but those aren't really being reported on so we're kind of just waiting to see what happens.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 03:58
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:There's no military exercises and no nuclear tests. There are now active negotiations with China and Russia and both Koreas for economic development projects, most prominently expanding the trans-Siberian railroad into the Korean peninsula. South Korea and North Korea are fielding merged sports teams, and South Korea is planning to launch a joint bid with North Korea (and Japan and China) to host the 2030 World Cup. North Korea just agreed to restart family reunions. Pompeo's going to North Korea in the next few weeks, and there might be a second summit between Trump and Kim come September. During all of this, negotiations continue. I don't know about you, but I like this status quo a hell of a lot more than last year's pontificating about whether Trump's going to declare war via Twitter. There are lots of times of year that there aren't military exercises. There's been plenty of time with no ongoing nuclear tests. There has long been active Russian and Chinese investement and economic development in Korea and North Korea. The Trans-Siberian railroad system is already in the Korean peninsula, has been for nearly a century since connections were built. Merged sports teams have been done multiple times before, and joint bids to host World Cups are hardly unprecedented. Maybe having a second summit where Trump rambles aimlessly is frankly not even a benefit to anyone, and having Pompeo the CIA torture director going to visit hardly is encouraging either. And in all this time there's not been anything to stop Trump from randomly deciding he doesn't like "little rocket man" anymore and randomly claiming he's going to nuke North Korea again, because he's too loving belligerent to be kept appeased. You're jumping so hard to praise Trump for accomplishing nothing, and then bitching about how dare we not praise the nothing that has happened. Honestly if you're going to push this line of crap I'm going to need to see you praise all the accomplishments of George W Bush and ever other US president since 1953 in North Korea too, at least you'd be consistent then. Even the best case scenario if everything pans out is that meaningful change might come over the course of several years, with plenty of time for a Trump-like idiot to tear everything apart. That's why the declarations they signed at the summit were so wishy-washy, so both sides have easy outs on their little photo op promises.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 04:01
|
|
|
So what you're saying is that absolutely nothing has changed except for all these things that changed which don't count because they've been done before.fishmech posted:Even the best case scenario if everything pans out is that meaningful change might come over the course of several years, with plenty of time for a Trump-like idiot to tear everything apart. That's why the declarations they signed at the summit were so wishy-washy, so both sides have easy outs on their little photo op promises. That's kind of how meaningful change happens yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 04:06
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:So what you're saying is that absolutely nothing has changed except for all these things that changed which don't count because they've been done before. Nothing changed though. Things are status quo as ever. You refuse to comprehend this because you want to praise trump, but no one's been forced to make any concessions to anyone else. Meaningful change IE nothing being done in 🇰🇷 or the rest because of the current nothing. Again, where's your praise of dubyas work in 2003 when he kept the peninsula fully denuclearized? Or your praise of Obama for not drone striking Kim Jong UN?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 04:30
|
|
|
I'm not praising Trump. Most of the stuff mentioned in my post has absolutely nothing to do with Trump. It's domestic South Korean policy that Moon Jae-in is pushing, although at this point quite a bit of it is coming from non-governmental organizations of their own volition. It would do you well to remember that as far as any peace agreement goes we're the sideshow attraction compared to the negotiation between the two Koreas themselves. Trump's main accomplishment so far has been to not actively sabotage these efforts like past presidents did. But hey, credit where it's due. Thank you George W. Bush and Barack Obama, for not starting war in North Korea. That was a good policy decision. There you go, the scorching hot take that will no doubt destroy my credibility.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 04:44
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:I'm not praising Trump. Most of the stuff mentioned in my post has absolutely nothing to do with Trump. It's domestic South Korean policy that Moon Jae-in is pushing, although at this point quite a bit of it is coming from non-governmental organizations of their own volition. It would do you well to remember that as far as any peace agreement goes we're the sideshow attraction compared to the negotiation between the two Koreas themselves. Trump's main accomplishment so far has been to not actively sabotage these efforts like past presidents did. There is no room for bilateral peace when the multilateral war exists, foolish man. You are completely ignoring the nothing accomplished because you want some serious move away from status quo. But at best you might get a reversion to a few prior years status quo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 05:13
|
|
|
I never took you for the lol nothing matters type fishmech. All the same, I'll gladly take the 2015 status quo over the 2017 status quo if those are the choices we're stuck with.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 05:37
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:I never took you for the lol nothing matters type fishmech. All the same, I'll gladly take the 2015 status quo over the 2017 status quo if those are the choices we're stuck with. You have some very weird strawmen in your head dude. This poo poo specifically does not matter, because all sides have refused to commit, or have been unable to commit due to other actors, to any changes in the status quo. This is hardly atypical in Korean relations given who's involved in it. Not to mention that the "2017 status quo" only happened because President Deals decided to go on psychotic rants against typical North Korean posturing, due to him having no ability to understand or handle foreign relations. And all throughout that he was pulling poo poo like not being able to tell President Moon apart from Kim Jong Un, because they were both Korean.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 22:19
|
|
|
The idea of North Korea hosting World Cup games is somehow even funnier than Qatar hosting World Cup games, so hopefully that happens.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 22:32
|
|
|
Tacky-rear end Rococco posted:The idea of North Korea hosting World Cup games is somehow even funnier than Qatar hosting World Cup games, so hopefully that happens. I'd hope for improved relations for moments like this personally.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2018 00:13
|
|
|
fishmech posted:You have some very weird strawmen in your head dude. This poo poo specifically does not matter, because all sides have refused to commit, or have been unable to commit due to other actors, to any changes in the status quo. This is hardly atypical in Korean relations given who's involved in it. So poo poo does matter, except this specific poo poo which does not matter, and also all other poo poo related to the Korean peninsula apparently. Your fishmeching game is off lately fishmech. quote:Not to mention that the "2017 status quo" only happened because President Deals decided to go on psychotic rants against typical North Korean posturing, due to him having no ability to understand or handle foreign relations. And all throughout that he was pulling poo poo like not being able to tell President Moon apart from Kim Jong Un, because they were both Korean. Yes, I agree, Trump is bad. It is a good thing that our previous policy, of Trump threatening war on Twitter, has been replaced with a policy of Trump threatening peace on Twitter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2018 01:48
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/KingstonAReif/s...hingawful.com%2 I wonder what this is about.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2018 04:14
|
|
|
OhFunny posted:I wonder what this is about. Dear Kim, you still ain't called or wrote, I hope you have a chance I ain't mad, I just think it's hosed up you don't answer fans You didn't wanna talk to me outside the summit; I get it, you're tryin, but you coulda signed a bigly autograph for Paul Ryan (whatever it's close enough)
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2018 04:31
|
|
|
got fired from Snopes posted:I'd hope for improved relations for moments like this personally. Let's see: The country has no stable power grid and no hotel or transportation infrastructure. There is an extremely high chance that at least half of the 100 or so visitors and players that actually dare to come will piss off their secret police handlers and end up dead in concentration camps or as hostages in some diplomatic blackmail scenario. Yeah, I think FIFA might go for this, if the bribes is right.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2018 06:36
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:Let's see: The country has no stable power grid and no hotel or transportation infrastructure. There is an extremely high chance that at least half of the 100 or so visitors and players that actually dare to come will piss off their secret police handlers and end up dead in concentration camps or as hostages in some diplomatic blackmail scenario. Yeah, I think FIFA might go for this, if the bribes is right. lol
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2018 08:16
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1014594751625093120 So I guess we're going with the step-by-step approach?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2018 21:24
|
|
|
Willo567 posted:https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1014594751625093120 Salami tactics. Were taking this slice by slice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2018 07:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 15:45 |
|
|
This article is from a few months ago, but it’s really amazing to me how hard it is to go even a single day without being reminded of the Anglo media’s Racism Problem re:East Asian societies http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20171217-why-south-koreans-rarely-use-the-word-me quote:‘Uri’ isn’t a mere grammar point, it’s a cultural canon that captures the very essence of a nation. *long, loud, wet diarrhea squirting sound*
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2018 00:43
|
|