America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 38,983 comments
  • 1,695,874 views
Open up discussions without any conditions attached. The United States wants North Korea to disarm, so talk about the terms in those discussions. But so long as it's presented as "start to disarm and then we can talk", it will only reaffirm the North's belief that the United States is trying to inflict its view of the world on everyone else. It also seems to be doomed to fail from the outset so that if conflict comes about, the Trump administration can say "well, we tried the diplomatic approach" - but if they knew it wasn't going to work and proposed the talks in such a way that it would fall apart before it began, did they really try? Or did they just tick a box and move on?

Tick a box? It's the same foreign policy as Obama, Bush and Clinton. I'm confused, you've complained he's not acting like a politician and does gut reactions, yet when it comes to following long term foreign policy you still have issue? Pick an option will you, rather than just find a default that tries to supports your view of anti-Trump.

This is the diplomatic approach and respects the NPT, the only other option I'm aware of is let North Korea have the weapon, or adopt the Chinese policy on the subject.
 
Last edited:
Tick a box?
What I mean is that it doesn't seem to be a serious attempt at diplomacy. North Korea is not going to disarm for the sake of having talks, so the plan seems doomed to fail from the start. But if a conflict does break out, Trump will be able to point to this and say "we tried diplomacy, but it didn't work" to justify military action. My question is whether or not they're really trying. If they were serious about it, they would try and open talks with Kim without any conditions attached, least of all conditions that they know he will never agree to.
 
What I mean is that it doesn't seem to be a serious attempt at diplomacy. North Korea is not going to disarm for the sake of having talks, so the plan seems doomed to fail from the start. But if a conflict does break out, Trump will be able to point to this and say "we tried diplomacy, but it didn't work" to justify military action. My question is whether or not they're really trying. If they were serious about it, they would try and open talks with Kim without any conditions attached, least of all conditions that they know he will never agree to.

I answered your question if they're trying or not. The point is why open talks if nothing is going to come of it. There is no reason at all other nations should be seeking to further expand on nuclear proliferation.

Hell Trump could point to the last three presidential attempts made to talk to North Korea that lead to nothing, or led to NK canceling. They know the history of open talks with North Korea and where it led to, it's current world news.
 
The point is why open talks if nothing is going to come of it.

Because simply getting all the parties in the same room is the first step. If you can't achieve that, you can't achieve anything and might as well not bother with diplomacy at all.

Why is not having conditions on a meeting a big deal? It's literally just saying "let's meet up and talk", something that in the real world is totally fine. If nothing comes of it, so be it. Sometimes that's fine too. It's not like this problem is simply going to be solved overnight.
 
Because simply getting all the parties in the same room is the first step. If you can't achieve that, you can't achieve anything and might as well not bother with diplomacy at all.

Then once again as said re-open the six party talks. I've said this in the other thread, and no one seems to address the fact that this has been done for some time. There is a road map, Il to Un doesn't change that.

Let's say we have open discussion. We come in with nothing on the table to open talks (reopen really), and we come to the reason why there is obvious discussion, and that's the peninsula having nuclear weapons. After that is brought up, the conversation ends yet again. Thus proving either way it's a moot effort.

The obvious topic is nuclear weapons so it doesn't matter if we say before hand or during the actual talks what we want, if there is no discussion to come about it from the other side then there is nothing to do. Us saying open talks is no different than saying "we'll talk but you have to be willing to rethink abdicating your nuclear weapons to some degree"

Why is not having conditions on a meeting a big deal? It's literally just saying "let's meet up and talk", something that in the real world is totally fine. If nothing comes of it, so be it. Sometimes that's fine too. It's not like this problem is simply going to be solved overnight.

I just demonstrated why, "let's meet up and talk" has been done before. Also how do you go about making a comparison to the real world, when what we're talking about is pretty surreal to the average person trying to mend a bridge between another?

As for the last two sentences, you've basically said what I'm saying in that even if we had open discussion with no prerequisite and it came to nothing also. That is perfectly fine but pretty much expected anyways due to as I said to PM 3 other presidents having the same end result more or less. The issue (not sure if you missed it) that I have is people who will take failure to talk, as something on our behalf, because Trump is President, ignoring the pretext that North Korea will have a long range nuclear weapon and that's just that.

Other than that, I have to ask why you're so keen to defend North Korea (or seemingly) after having another discussion with you on the topic.
 
Other than that, I have to ask why you're so keen to defend North Korea (or seemingly) after having another discussion with you on the topic.

Because for too many people they are the latest moral panic, a boogeyman to get irrational over. It's just a country, with normal people in it, most of which aren't in that particular situation of their own choice and are just doing what it takes to get by. They have had most of the world pointing guns at them since the birth of the state, and yet at the same time everyone expects them to disarm.

As someone who has gone through the personal equivalent of this, I find it easy to sympathise. I don't support how they run their country, but that's true of a remarkable number of nations these days. I have no trouble separating out my criticism of their national politics from my opinion of how the rest of the world treats them like a red-headed step child.

As far as the threats of military action against them, I don't see the point. NK can have whatever weapons it wants to feel safe from the actual armies that are sitting on it's doorstep, in the full knowledge that using them other than defensively will end in them being wiped off the map. It feels like a prisoner's dilemma, but where the US and allies think that NK is so cowed that they'd never bring both down no matter what the US chooses. The only situation in which NK actually "wins" in any sense by pushing the button is if they think that they can first strike all potential retaliation (which is impossible), or if they've already lost.

Threatening to invade pushes them closer to thinking that they've already lost. If I told you that Kim Jong Un was going to have you assassinated on Sunday, you might well spend the last week of your life trying to make sure that he'd pay for it in some way. Or you might not, but it would hardly be an irrational way to behave.

I don't see myself as defending North Korea, but I do hope that some of my comments can help people look at the situation from another angle. NK is only a credible threat to the US and it's allies if they give it reasons to be. Within their own odd situation, NK is not irrational or stupid. I understand South Korea's fear, the "enemy" is right on their doorstep. But the US antagonism seems unnecessary, and now that the US has largely backed out of Afghanistan and Iraq I wonder if this isn't the next random war that will be started on some pretext that later turns out to be bollocks.
 
It's not really my analogy (see link) but is all wealth redistribution via tax analagous to stealing?

Oh I know it wasn't yours, it was in the article. Yes, all wealth redistribution via tax is analogous to stealing (you're taking someone's property from them).
 
Yes, all wealth redistribution via tax is analogous to stealing (you're taking someone's property from them).

Not only that, but I think it's way too often not realized or outright ignored is the fact that the government can't hand out a single dime without extracting it (by force if necessary) from somebody else.
 
Also a very poor analogy. A closer analogy would be one in which the horse grew the oats, and someone came and stole the oats to give to the sparrows, but wasted most of the oats in the process. Ironically, had they let the horse have his oats, the sparrows would have had more as well.

You have a strange (Randian, I suppose) way of looking at things. In reality it is the sparrows who "grow the oats" - maybe on fields owned by the horses & maybe the horses provide some horse **** to help fertilize the fields - but the labour of growing the oats is provided by the sparrows.

The question is: do the sparrows get to eat some of the oats ... or are they relegated to eating only what the horses **** out on the road?
 
The question is: do the sparrows get to eat some of the oats ... or are they relegated to eating only what the horses **** out on the road?

The idea was that the horses get all the oats and the sparrows pick the surplus that the horses crap out :)

Will Rogers also noted that "trickle down" economics forgets that, unlike water, money runs uphill. Put enough at the bottom and it soon ends up at the top, he told us.
 
Yeah, all taxation is apparently theft from a libertarian point of view.

Cy8yduz.jpg


Presumably in a perfect world all infrastructure is provided by charitable donations from large corporations and philanthropists.
 
Last edited:
When did sparrows and horses develop agrarian societies? And how? Wings, birds' feet and hooves aren't exactly ideally developed for large-scale agricultural processes...
 
When did sparrows and horses develop agrarian societies? And how? Wings, birds' feet and hooves aren't exactly ideally developed for large-scale agricultural processes...

Sounds a bit like judging a fish by its ability to climb a tree to me.
 
You have a strange (Randian, I suppose) way of looking at things. In reality it is the sparrows who "grow the oats" - maybe on fields owned by the horses & maybe the horses provide some horse **** to help fertilize the fields - but the labour of growing the oats is provided by the sparrows.

The question is: do the sparrows get to eat some of the oats ... or are they relegated to eating only what the horses **** out on the road?

Oats are money in this analogy. So the horses grew the oats.

The idea was that the horses get all the oats and the sparrows pick the surplus that the horses crap out :)

Will Rogers also noted that "trickle down" economics forgets that, unlike water, money runs uphill. Put enough at the bottom and it soon ends up at the top, he told us.

That completely misunderstands the nature of economies. The wealth "at the top" and "at the bottom" is created, it doesn't "run" anywhere.

Yeah, all taxation is apparently theft from a libertarian point of view.

Cy8yduz.jpg

The robin hood legend does not take place in a capitalist society, so it's pretty odd to use it to talk about one.

Presumably in a perfect world all infrastructure is provided by charitable donations from large corporations and philanthropists.

Usage fees.
 
That completely misunderstands the nature of economies. The wealth "at the top" and "at the bottom" is created, it doesn't "run" anywhere.

I didn't say it did or didn't, I was just clarifying what Rogers said in the material you and others were quoting.
 
all wealth redistribution via tax is analogous to stealing (you're taking someone's property from them).
The robin hood legend does not take place in a capitalist society, so it's pretty odd to use it to talk about one.
So "all" for a given value of all. Thanks for the clarification. I'll be sure to pass it on to the libertarians who created this meme if I encounter them.
 
So "all" for a given value of all. Thanks for the clarification. I'll be sure to pass it on to the libertarians who created this meme if I encounter them.

*sigh*

Ok, yes my comments were made in regard to economies based on capitalism with a recognition of human rights - not in regard to medieval feudalism, or whatever weird monarchy the cartoon fox was drawn up in. So yes, "all" for a given value of "all", if you must. I would think that it goes without saying that a discussion of "taxes" which include any and all possible definitions or interpretations of the word would be nearly impossible.

And yes, feel free to pass that on to the misguided individuals who created that meme.

I will point out, however irrelevant, that the robin hood legend describes a wealth redistribution tax in which wealth is supposedly redistributed from the poor to the rich. I think, especially in the fox cartoon, that it is supposed to be taken as a given that it is theft, and that robin hood is fighting against that theft. Regardless it has no bearing on taxes in the US or UK.
 
Last edited:
Will Attorney General Sessions eventually indict Hillary? Is it inevitable? The missing Verizon/Blackberry 30,000 emails from her first 90 days at State (including classified and special access), hacked by 5 other nations, were found on Weiner's laptop. She had transferred them to her unauthorized server at home. Her intent to hire Pagliano to engineer this may well constitute (felony) espionage.

 
I came for the oats. Wat happen?

Obamacare repealed.

The government stopped making shoes for everyone. OH NOE HOW WILL WE HAVE SHOES NOW?
 
Back