ilovefuzz.com

D.o.S. wrote:And part of the reason why dissent is close to unheard of is because the population is on a steady diet of state-curated information about the outside world. Not only did you get no concession on this -- but you also gave the NK state enough imagery to keep feeding their people nonsense for years.

They were about to run out?

The problem is that it's all about appearances. It's about how this summit appears to the North Korean public. It's also about how it appears to US allies (Korea, by the way, was totally not informed that The States were planning to pull the plug on the joint military exercises). In broad terms, it's about the United States being eager to suck up to all sorts of garden variety tyrants and throw their allies under the bus.

Heh, yes, it is unknown in the annals of history for the US to get involved with "garden variety tyrants." A wild and new frontier, to be sure.

Again, you're waving your hands about PR, without actually pointing to a concrete problem. Why do I give a shit that SK wasn't informed about pulling out of war games? Being neither a hawk nor fond of American imperialism, I'm of the mind that we should begin unilaterally withdrawing the American military presence from South Korea this afternoon.

The US is flushing decades' worth of goodwill down the toilet right now. Do you think the other sides to the Iran nuclear deal are looking at this and saying, "What a perfect first step, was totally worth bending over backwards to Kim for this. It's not like they have made vague promises and failed to deliver before.

This is a complete misunderstanding of the last 25 years of negotiations with NK - we've done as much to undercut deals (cf. Gingrich and Co.'s response to Clinton dealing with NK, followed by their inclusion in the Axis of Evil).

I have no idea what the reference to Iran is supposed to mean - we're actively undermining that (with the help of Congressional Democrats) separate from the Kim summit. It's completely irrelevant.

I'm not sure what is so wild about thinking this is a bad thing.

What's wild is that that libs/Dems have been pushed into demanding heightened tension with Russia and acting like hawks on Iran and NK purely in reaction to Trump's existence. That's a dangerous fuckin' game. I say my prayers every day that he strokes out while tweeting but in the meantime the greatest danger he poses is getting us into a war - attacking him from the right doesn't help that.

Given your potentially wilful misunderstanding of nearly everything I've written, I'm going to wish you the best with regards to your country and bail on this conversation, because obviously something is being lost in translation (and, I assure you, it's not that I'm lacking in knowledge about US imperialism).

Pretty sure there's been no misunderstanding, willful or otherwise.

Your arguments revolve around 'propaganda coup that's going to keep the NK regime in power' - this remains fundamentally silly, given their tenure, control and support from China.
Aside from that it's "legitimizing tyrants" (which you might call an American Pastime, up there with baseball and racism) but I fail to see why the North Korean head of state doesn't deserve a place at any table alongside any other head of state. There's no morality in play there, simply a recognition that someone is in charge of a state.

The real world effect of the summit is almost nil - but that's still better than what was happening before and it's better than the outcome of attacking Trump from the right. So what did it cost us? The expense of a one day summit in Singapore? If we do, in fact, end war games in South Korea that more than justifies the whole thing.

dont worry everyone....
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36_3MKM5g08[/youtube]
hope this wonderful country treats you all as m^ch this weekend

Anyone who wants to try to normalize Trump meeting with KJU should consider this
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 4116d9dabb
and this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoeryong_ ... ation_camp

jirodreamsofdank wrote:war games

Military exercises are not games. Please stop normalizing Trump's stupidity.

The real reason the North Koreans claim they want peace is because they accidentally destroyed their own nuclear test site following their last nuclear test, which was on September 3 of last year.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-kore ... m-jong-un/
Last month they put on this charade of blowing up tunnels at the test site, which had already been rendered unusable.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-44240047
Does that really sound like a government you can trust with a nuclear weapons deal?

jirodreamsofdank wrote:Being neither a hawk nor fond of American imperialism, I'm of the mind that we should begin unilaterally withdrawing the American military presence from South Korea this afternoon.

I'm neither a hawk nor an imperialist, but South Korea is an ally, so no, we should not just abandon them to the tender mercies of KJU, who could then commit nuclear blackmail.

Lurker13 wrote:

jirodreamsofdank wrote:war games

Military exercises are not games. Please stop normalizing Trump's stupidity.

War game
/ˈwôr ˌɡām/
noun
1. a military exercise carried out to test or improve tactical expertise.
verb NORTH AMERICAN
1. engage in (a campaign or course of action) using the strategies of a military exercise.
"there seemed to be no point war-gaming an election 15 months away"

jrfox92 wrote:

Lurker13 wrote:

jirodreamsofdank wrote:war games

Military exercises are not games. Please stop normalizing Trump's stupidity.

War game
/ˈwôr ˌɡām/
noun
1. a military exercise carried out to test or improve tactical expertise.
verb NORTH AMERICAN
1. engage in (a campaign or course of action) using the strategies of a military exercise.
"there seemed to be no point war-gaming an election 15 months away"

Servicemembers occasionally DIE in those GAMES, and that nomenclature is outdated.

Edit: let me pile on here with the psychological aspect. By calling them "war games" instead of "military exercises", Trump was trying to trivialize them to psychologically help justify suddenly canceling them. I shouldn't have said he was normalizing Trump's stupidity so much as his propaganda.

This is where shit just gets silly. "War games" is a common usage, it has fuck all to do with Trump. Outdated nomenclature? I guess maybe in the era where soldiers refer to themselves as "warfighters" and bullshit like that, but I don't really give a fuck what the military calls anything. Most of their language exists to diminish what they actually do, like bombing weddings.

I loathe Trump with every fiber of my being - as I loathe the Republican Party in general - but I'm not going to start chasing after windmills because of words he uses.

jirodreamsofdank wrote:This is where shit just gets silly. "War games" is a common usage, it has fuck all to do with Trump. Outdated nomenclature? I guess maybe in the era where soldiers refer to themselves as "warfighters" and bullshit like that, but I don't really give a fuck what the military calls anything. Most of their language exists to diminish what they actually do, like bombing weddings.

I loathe Trump with every fiber of my being - as I loathe the Republican Party in general - but I'm not going to start chasing after windmills because of words he uses.

It's not silly. Words matter, and context matters. Trump chose those words for a reason.

But I guess that's a good pretext for ignoring the fact that you would be fine with throwing yet another democracy under the bus, and for one of the most vile tyrants on the planet.

In the interest of full disclosure, I would be fine with bringing our troops home from South Korea too, provided there was a real peace treaty signed by the North and South, and North Korea demobilized a significant portion of its military.

jirodreamsofdank wrote:Most of their language exists to diminish what they actually do, like bombing weddings.

I agree about the language, that was exactly my point with Trump - words matter, and context matters. The rest of that sentence is facile and scurrilous.

I understand your abhorrence for dehumanizing rhetoric like "collateral damage", and I agree. I want these never-ending wars to end as much as anybody, and as fast as possible. After Desert Storm, we suffered from hubris, and all the lessons of Vietnam were forgotten. We became too eager to use military force.

I also agree with you that the Democrats let themselves be defined by decades of Republican rhetoric. "Soft on defense, soft on crime", and yes, now they act hawkishly just to try to prove the Republicans wrong.

But you seem to be advocating isolationism, e.g. let's pull out of South Korea tonight. Maybe isolationism was a fine policy in the 19th Century, but today we live in an interconnected world where you can communicate with someone on the other side of the planet with just a few seconds delay, or travel to the other side of the wold in a day, so isolationism just isn't the answer. If we abandon our long-time allies, then soon we won't have any allies.

Lurker13 wrote:Maybe isolationism was a fine policy in the 19th Century, but today we live in an interconnected world where you can communicate with someone on the other side of the planet with just a few seconds delay, or travel to the other side of the wold in a day, so isolationism just isn't the answer. If we abandon our long-time allies, then soon we won't have any allies.

The problem is though, 'merika™ Has a very isolationist culture particularly on the right, that's why they fear and chastise people that are from a different culture and a different skin huge...

Lurker13 wrote:But you seem to be advocating isolationism, e.g. let's pull out of South Korea tonight. Maybe isolationism was a fine policy in the 19th Century, but today we live in an interconnected world where you can communicate with someone on the other side of the planet with just a few seconds delay, or travel to the other side of the wold in a day, so isolationism just isn't the answer. If we abandon our long-time allies, then soon we won't have any allies.

There is a vast middle ground between isolationism and the hyper-interventionism of the US post-WW2. Germany doesn't have troops in 150 countries, are they isolationist? To what extent has our global projection of force been a good thing? I struggle, over the last 70 years, to think where it has been for the good - as a rule, the consequences (intended or unintended) of our interventions have been almost wholly negative.

As far as South Korea, the people of SK are far less hawkish toward NK than Americans - and have generally taken a positive view of the summit and aftermath. We've actively been an impediment to improving the relationship between the two because a peace treaty would deprive of us of SK as a base in China's sphere of influence.

jirodreamsofdank wrote:

Lurker13 wrote:But you seem to be advocating isolationism, e.g. let's pull out of South Korea tonight. Maybe isolationism was a fine policy in the 19th Century, but today we live in an interconnected world where you can communicate with someone on the other side of the planet with just a few seconds delay, or travel to the other side of the wold in a day, so isolationism just isn't the answer. If we abandon our long-time allies, then soon we won't have any allies.

There is a vast middle ground between isolationism and the hyper-interventionism of the US post-WW2. Germany doesn't have troops in 150 countries, are they isolationist? To what extent has our global projection of force been a good thing? I struggle, over the last 70 years, to think where it has been for the good - as a rule, the consequences (intended or unintended) of our interventions have been almost wholly negative.

As far as South Korea, the people of SK are far less hawkish toward NK than Americans - and have generally taken a positive view of the summit and aftermath. We've actively been an impediment to improving the relationship between the two because a peace treaty would deprive of us of SK as a base in China's sphere of influence.

Uhhh.....



And as an aside, I'd like to remind everyone that even if NK gave up all their nukes, they still have a mountain of ballistic missiles and artillery pointed not just at Seoul but also at Japan, Guam, the Philippines, Taiwan, Australia, etc. THAT is why the US is not pulling out of the region - even if the two areas unify, we have allies in the region beyond SK that do NOT trust the NKs and are just as hawkish towards them (and China) as we are. This honestly has very little to do with NK-SK relations and has more to do with keeping China at bay and helping our non-Korean allies in the region.

Yes, we have troops elsewhere in the region - as noted, we have forces in 150 nations. South Korea happens to be the second station of troops in East Asia outside of Japan, right on the doorstep of a client state of China. It's almost like we have a vested interest in having a reason to keep them there.

I'll say again that as a fundamentally anti-imperialist sort of guy, projection of force "for the sake of our allies" and "to keep China at bay" isn't really a selling point to me. North Korea has missiles pointed at Guam... because Guam is a US territory. Regardless, North Korea is kept on a tight leash by China and it's silly to pretend they have designs on attacking Taiwan or the Philippines for any reason aside from their strife with us.

Just saw a picture of Rosaries confiscated from immigrants caught by ICE. Its a knee jerk reaction, but the first thing I thought of what the shoes at the holocaust museum.

Im sick to my stomach. If my son was taken from me and shipped to some camp somewhere, I would rather die than live without him.

I hope someone conveniently assassinates trump and co in the near future. Even tho it would change nothing, someone needs to pay for this.