North Korea, Sanctions, and Kim Jong-un

[Dotini]

The location has been leaked and it fits in with Trump's past.

Yugemania!
Sunday, May 27
Seoul Olympic Stadium

Steel Cage Match for the title of Craziest World Leader
Loser has to give up all nuclear weapons

WWE Hall of Famer Donald "The Don" Trump Vs. "Killer" Kim Jong-Un (Champion)
Special Guest Referee Vladimir "The Bear" Putin

Undercard to be announced at a later date.

​

Spoiler

This is what happens when I'm bored at work on a Friday.

This is great, I'll buy two tickets. "Living God" Kim versus "Transcendent Genius" Don. Ever so much better than watching The Day After.

 

[Scaff]

Have America do what we do best, dethrone him and install a government that will actually feed their people...
I know I know, we have a problem finishing the job at times.
Hopefully Trump can finish it first term.
My girl said she'd actually vote for him next term if he can have a successful meeting. We'll see, I heard on the radio Trump wants to see some changes before the meeting even happens.

Sorry when have the US done that alone?

Grenada is the only one that comes to mind.

 

[Rallywagon]

Panama, panama ah ah ah ah ah ah.

 

[Scaff]

Panama, panama ah ah ah ah ah ah.

Good call, it was mainly to fix a problem it helped keep in place however.

Neither are on the scale of NK however.

 

[Dotini]

Sorry when have the US done that alone?

Grenada is the only one that comes to mind.

By "alone", do you mean 100% entirely without the aid of any other ally, including indigenous rebels or proxies? The US has instigated, supported, aided, financed, armed and assisted the overthrow of many, many foreign countries. The list is huge. If pared down to solely the US military overthrowing another government without a major role for allies or internal rebels, the list is shorter, but still more than one or two, I would think.

 

[Scaff]

By "alone", do you mean 100% entirely without the aid of any other ally, including indigenous rebels or proxies? The US has instigated, supported, aided, financed, armed and assisted the overthrow of many, many foreign countries. The list is huge. If pared down to solely the US military overthrowing another government without a major role for allies or internal rebels, the list is shorter, but still more than one or two, I would think.

That par that list down to the ones that ended up with a stable government after the withdrawal of troops.

Its a very short list, however don't go all patriotic and defensive. My point actually is that this is not a US problem (start a war/invade a country, bugger off and leave it a mess), its a global one and affects pretty much every country or coalition of countries.

 

[DK]

The location has been leaked and it fits in with Trump's past.

Yugemania!
Sunday, May 27
Seoul Olympic Stadium

Steel Cage Match for the title of Craziest World Leader
Loser has to give up all nuclear weapons

WWE Hall of Famer Donald "The Don" Trump Vs. "Killer" Kim Jong-Un (Champion)
Special Guest Referee Vladimir "The Bear" Putin

Undercard to be announced at a later date.

​

Spoiler

This is what happens when I'm bored at work on a Friday.

They missed a trick by not reviving the "Collision In Korea" name. I'm sure Trump has a friend who could sort that out.

 

[Robin]

Their stage names apparently are Dotard Vs Rocket Man

 

[TenEightyOne]

Have America do what we do best, dethrone him and install a government that will actually feed their people...

Come on, they didn't even do that alone with the actual America

 

[Touring Mars]

The location has been leaked and it fits in with Trump's past.

Yugemania!
Sunday, May 27
Seoul Olympic Stadium

Steel Cage Match for the title of Craziest World Leader
Loser has to give up all nuclear weapons

WWE Hall of Famer Donald "The Don" Trump Vs. "Killer" Kim Jong-Un (Champion)
Special Guest Referee Vladimir "The Bear" Putin

Undercard to be announced at a later date.

​

Spoiler

This is what happens when I'm bored at work on a Friday.

Exclusive video footage...!



Is it just me or does one of these guys look very much like Trump?! (he even grabs crotches!)

This video shows just how far we have come since 1985

 

[Robin]

We even have the real thing!




This meeting is going to go well...

 

[Imari]

Sorry when have the US done that alone?

Grenada is the only one that comes to mind.

Even in Grenada the primary goal was the protection of the hundreds of US students present. Overthrowing the government was secondary.

Panama, panama ah ah ah ah ah ah.

Again, it was primarily about protecting American lives and interests. Also, getting rid of a hostile government that was opposing the US.

If pared down to solely the US military overthrowing another government without a major role for allies or internal rebels, the list is shorter, but still more than one or two, I would think.

You'd think so, but try to actually come up with some names. It's harder than it looks, and the impression of the humanitarian US military going in and fixing up rogue states doesn't really match up with the reality. Even a list of coalition invasions that have enforced a regime change that has ultimately left the country in an unequivocally better state is pretty short. Especially if you count after the end of WW2.

Generally it's invasions of states that were working more or less fine (especially considering the range of corrupt and destructive governments available) or had problems that could have been best resolved internally, but that happened to be opposing US interests or just generally getting up the US's collective nostrils.

===========

While there may occasionally be humanitarian outcomes from some of these invasions, I can't think of one where it was anywhere near a primary goal. The US overthrows foreign governments primarily because they're hostile to the US. Which is legit in it's own way, but I find it a bit troubling when the US gets painted as this saviour of oppressed peoples instead of a rather aggressive power that is willing to use significant military force against countries that operate in ways that are inconvenient. It's a valid way to operate, I just don't like the apologetics, misinformation and retconning of justifications. If you're gonna go in and stomp people cos it's good for your country, have the sack to admit to it. Especially in the case of proxy wars.

It also seems that the number of overthrown governments that end up stable and generally better off afterwards are rather few. Far more common seems to be civil unrest, ongoing violence, and general mistrust of the new government that is viewed as a US puppet.

 

[Dotini]

Even in Grenada the primary goal was the protection of the hundreds of US students present. Overthrowing the government was secondary.



Again, it was primarily about protecting American lives and interests. Also, getting rid of a hostile government that was opposing the US.



You'd think so, but try to actually come up with some names. It's harder than it looks, and the impression of the humanitarian US military going in and fixing up rogue states doesn't really match up with the reality. Even a list of coalition invasions that have enforced a regime change that has ultimately left the country in an unequivocally better state is pretty short. Especially if you count after the end of WW2.

Generally it's invasions of states that were working more or less fine (especially considering the range of corrupt and destructive governments available) or had problems that could have been best resolved internally, but that happened to be opposing US interests or just generally getting up the US's collective nostrils.

===========

While there may occasionally be humanitarian outcomes from some of these invasions, I can't think of one where it was anywhere near a primary goal. The US overthrows foreign governments primarily because they're hostile to the US. Which is legit in it's own way, but I find it a bit troubling when the US gets painted as this saviour of oppressed peoples instead of a rather aggressive power that is willing to use significant military force against countries that operate in ways that are inconvenient. It's a valid way to operate, I just don't like the apologetics, misinformation and retconning of justifications. If you're gonna go in and stomp people cos it's good for your country, have the sack to admit to it. Especially in the case of proxy wars.

It also seems that the number of overthrown governments that end up stable and generally better off afterwards are rather few. Far more common seems to be civil unrest, ongoing violence, and general mistrust of the new government that is viewed as a US puppet.

Agreed. As an antiwar libertarian, I've been against foreign interventions for decades.

 

[Imari]

Agreed. As an antiwar libertarian, I've been against foreign interventions for decades.

I'm not exactly anti-war, I think that there are valid reasons for getting into wars. I'm anti-stupid-wars though, and anti-wars-for-personal-or-political-gain. I'm very anti-this-leader-annoyed-us-so-lets-get-him-wars. It would be safe to say that I only think that war is justified in extreme situations, and that it would be exceptionally rare where a first strike or taking the war to foreign soil was actually justified.

For me, the military exists to safeguard the country and it's citizens against violence from other countries. Ideally it does nothing but exist as the fist inside the glove of diplomacy. But it should rarely need to be used, especially in the case of the US where the military force is overwhelming. Any reasonable request like "give our citizens safe passage out of your country undergoing a military coup or we come in and get them" should be complied with by and leadership with an IQ greater than 60.

I don't see how foreign "interventions" serve any of the above. It strikes me as more like the modern equivalent of annexing land from neighbouring countries. That's considered poor form under modern international law, but it's not too hard to occupy a country in the name of an "intervention" and then fiddle with the government until you get one that's suitably submissive, either as a direct puppet or simply because they know who's holding the whip handle.

 

[Rallywagon]

Even in Grenada the primary goal was the protection of the hundreds of US students present. Overthrowing the government was secondary.



Again, it was primarily about protecting American lives and interests. Also, getting rid of a hostile government that was opposing the US.



You'd think so, but try to actually come up with some names. It's harder than it looks, and the impression of the humanitarian US military going in and fixing up rogue states doesn't really match up with the reality. Even a list of coalition invasions that have enforced a regime change that has ultimately left the country in an unequivocally better state is pretty short. Especially if you count after the end of WW2.

Generally it's invasions of states that were working more or less fine (especially considering the range of corrupt and destructive governments available) or had problems that could have been best resolved internally, but that happened to be opposing US interests or just generally getting up the US's collective nostrils.

===========

While there may occasionally be humanitarian outcomes from some of these invasions, I can't think of one where it was anywhere near a primary goal. The US overthrows foreign governments primarily because they're hostile to the US. Which is legit in it's own way, but I find it a bit troubling when the US gets painted as this saviour of oppressed peoples instead of a rather aggressive power that is willing to use significant military force against countries that operate in ways that are inconvenient. It's a valid way to operate, I just don't like the apologetics, misinformation and retconning of justifications. If you're gonna go in and stomp people cos it's good for your country, have the sack to admit to it. Especially in the case of proxy wars.

It also seems that the number of overthrown governments that end up stable and generally better off afterwards are rather few. Far more common seems to be civil unrest, ongoing violence, and general mistrust of the new government that is viewed as a US puppet.

And if you really believe those were the real reasons, i have a time share in the Rock Candy Mountains to sell ya for cheap.
I dont doubt that there was worry about US civilians in Panama, but, Noriega was a US trained narc (maybe warlord is more appropriate) that decided to remove the leash theyvput on him. He knew names and places of the Contra scandal, knew about the CIA gov selling drugs to its population to fund said contras. He knew a lot of things the US did not want him talking about. When he stopped cooperating with our governement, they sent in assassins. When that failed Noriega declared war. What Bush used as justification may all have had truth, but it wasn't the truth.

 

[Blitz24]

The location has been leaked and it fits in with Trump's past.

Yugemania!
Sunday, May 27
Seoul Olympic Stadium

Steel Cage Match for the title of Craziest World Leader
Loser has to give up all nuclear weapons

WWE Hall of Famer Donald "The Don" Trump Vs. "Killer" Kim Jong-Un (Champion)
Special Guest Referee Vladimir "The Bear" Putin

Undercard to be announced at a later date.

​

Spoiler

This is what happens when I'm bored at work on a Friday.

-1 no Michael Buffer.

 

[Imari]

And if you really believe those were the real reasons, i have a time share in the Rock Candy Mountains to sell ya for cheap.
I dont doubt that there was worry about US civilians in Panama, but, Noriega was a US trained narc (maybe warlord is more appropriate) that decided to remove the leash theyvput on him. He knew names and places of the Contra scandal, knew about the CIA gov selling drugs to its population to fund said contras. He knew a lot of things the US did not want him talking about. When he stopped cooperating with our governement, they sent in assassins. When that failed Noriega declared war. What Bush used as justification may all have had truth, but it wasn't the truth.

Is that the Big Rock Candy Mountains or the Lesser Rock Candy Ranges?

Anyway, quite. The real justification is that they wanted him stomped. But again, it's not a humanitarian effort to remove a corrupt government to benefit the citizens of Panama. It's a war to benefit the US, either through direct removal of an obstacle or using Noriega as an example. When the US government says jump, you say how high sir and would you like a sandwich with that?

The point is that I'm not sure there's ever been an example of the US successfully "dethrone him and install a government that will actually feed their people...". Certainly no one has suggested one so far. There's a handful of countries that have been left debatably better off after a US invasion, but it wasn't intentional and isn't even part of the decision to invade. The US invades countries for their own political benefit, and then spins it using whatever propaganda is convenient at the time.

 

[Brett]

-1 no Michael Buffer.

How about Jim Ross announcing?

 

[Robin]

Seems like Kim might be on his first trip abroad since taking power. One of his fathers special green trains has been spotted pulling into a station in a Chinese border town. Sources say he is indeed in the country.

Possibly an initial trip ahead of the big one with Trump in China?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Seems like Kim might be on his first trip abroad since taking power. One of his fathers special green trains has been spotted pulling into a station in a Chinese border town. Sources say he is indeed in the country.

Possibly an initial trip ahead of the big one with Trump in China?

China has now confirmed this.

 

[Blitz24]

China has now confirmed this.

And the following has just come out of the woodwork.

 

[Robin]

I do wonder if Kim suddenly woke up one morning and had some sort of divine intervention moment or something

Total 180 from the rhetoric we saw just a few months ago.

 

[Dotini]

I do wonder if Kim suddenly woke up one morning and had some sort of divine intervention moment or something

Total 180 from the rhetoric we saw just a few months ago.

Yes, but even better, a phone call from Beijing.

 

[Robin]

Yes, but even better, a phone call from Beijing.

Yeah it was Xi on the line saying we're going to roll the tanks in!

 

[Robin]

Kim's got a very fetching row of Pink leather sofas on his train although the walls could do with some improvement!

 

[ryzno]

NK has announced they are ending their nuclear program and they will be working on improving their economy.
As usual phone at work no link...

 

[PeterJB]

NK has announced they are ending their nuclear program and they will be working on improving their economy.
As usual phone at work no link...

...And then next week they bomb Seoul.

This has a whiff of Chamberlain-Hitler to it.

 

[TexRex]

NK has announced they are ending their nuclear program and they will be working on improving their economy.

No, they haven't.

As usual phone at work no link...

Here are some:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-korea-to-suspend-nuclear-tests-state-news-reports/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ff2eea-44e7-11e8-baaf-8b3c5a3da888_story.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-43846488
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...le-launch-cancelled-trump-talks-a8315171.html

What they all indicate is that testing--not the program--has been halted, which is likely the concession that was alluded to not long ago.

Given the abysmal rate of accurate reporting from your "work source" as of late (Russia not withdrawing from Syria; Cohen raid not having to do with Russia investigation), perhaps you should consider a new, more accepted and citable one.

 

[ryzno]

No, they haven't.


Here are some:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-korea-to-suspend-nuclear-tests-state-news-reports/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ff2eea-44e7-11e8-baaf-8b3c5a3da888_story.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-43846488
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...le-launch-cancelled-trump-talks-a8315171.html

What they all indicate is that testing--not the program--has been halted, which is likely the concession that was alluded to not long ago.

Given the abysmal rate of accurate reporting from your "work source" as of late (Russia not withdrawing from Syria; Cohen raid not having to do with Russia investigation), perhaps you should consider a new, more accepted and citable one.

I'm just telling you what I heard on the radio...
WSB owned by ABC...
I don't have time at work, driving to check these things. Thanks for the links.
That said maybe you should be open to other news networks...
https://www.wsbtv.com/news/north-korea-says-it-will-suspend-nuclear-and-missile-testing/735457453

All of that said I'm siding with Peter... I'm not holding my breath over this. If you don't like me trying to help with news then feel free to ignore me. I don't lie and I never really post my opinion on these things when I announce them before others here.

 

[Obelisk]

Confirmation bias is a hell of a thing, isn't it?

Not to mention that radio shows aren't really very reliable when it comes to news - I've heard questionable stories from Matty in the Morning on KISS 108 before so it's not a surprise to me. If anyone is to read an article that @TexRex posted,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-43846488

^^This is one of the better news sources as the BBC seems to be the most transparent and unbiased of them all.

Edit: @'d wrong user whoops