American Politics

[Reebi]

Well, technically, the US, UK, France, Russia, and China are all the "police" of the world. They make up the 5 permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, which is responsible for peacekeeping efforts and sorting out any military conflict.

But that's besides the point because, in my opinion, every country should be the "police" of the world... that is, if they care about the world.

Somebody has to take responsibility for maintaining world order, and that is practically the purpose of the UN Security Council.


I understand that there are laws in place for international conflicts, but at the same time, there are laws that have to be upheld. It is in the vital interest of the entire world to make sure that those who don't follow the rules are punished.

And besides, the recent military intervention in Syria was quite limited and had specific targets. The term "war" is a bit over-exaggerated in my personal opinion.

If every country tries to police the world you would have more conflict because x country believes they are right to attack y country. They make up half of the Security Coucil, meaning they still can't legally attack. If they break international law, no matter the intention, that opens up the door for others to break international law.

 

[Nemispelled]

If every country tries to police the world you would have more conflict because x country believes they are right to attack y country. They make up half of the Security Coucil, meaning they still can't legally attack. If they break international law, no matter the intention, that opens up the door for others to break international law.

Every country should police the world by punishing those who break international law. It's a collective effort. I'm not advocating for the invasion of every country just because another country disagrees with their political structure.

The US, UK, France, Russia, and China are permanent members of the Security Council, so they technically have greater responsibility & power to ensure peace because the other 10 countries are all temporary and in rotation.

Not to mention, those 5 countries possess the greatest influence and strength to achieve a goal like global peace -- having been the victors of WWII.

Since they're the most powerful, they should step up and take the responsibility. It'd be quite unfair to ask somebody like Lithuania to protect the world...


Besides, the 5 countries mentioned above have ridiculously strong economies and militaries compared to the rest of the world.

They can afford to spend the money and resources for defense and other peacekeeping efforts.

 

[Reebi]

Every country should police the world by punishing those who break international law. It's a collective effort. I'm not advocating for the invasion of every country just because another country disagrees with their political structure.

The US, UK, France, Russia, and China are permanent members of the Security Council, so they technically have greater responsibility & power to ensure peace because the other 10 countries are all temporary and in rotation.

Not to mention, those 5 countries possess the greatest influence and strength to achieve a goal like global peace -- having been the victors of WWII.

Since they're the most powerful, they should step up and take the responsibility. It'd be quite unfair to ask somebody like Lithuania to protect the world...


Besides, the 5 countries mentioned above have ridiculously strong economies and militaries compared to the rest of the world.

They can afford to spend the money and resources for defense and other peacekeeping efforts.

They still have to vote on decisions and there are 15 members of the council in total.
http://www.un.org/en/sc/members/
Being a permanent member is irrelevant if not all of the council agrees to strike.

 

[Nemispelled]

They still have to vote on decisions and there are 15 members of the council in total.
http://www.un.org/en/sc/members/
Being a permanent member is irrelevant if not all of the council agrees to strike.

As I said in a previous post, out of the 15 members, 8 of them refused to condemn the US, UK, and France for their missile strikes. Only 3 countries voted to punish the Western powers, they were: Russia, China, and Bolivia. 4 abstained from the vote.

That means the majority of the U.N. Security Council saw no problem with the strikes on the chemical weapons facilities. NATO even stated that they fully supported the military strikes in Syria.


Being a permanent member means being more responsible for "policing" the world. They are part of an organization that is meant to uphold international law and security.

Who's going to have the most responsibility if Syria conducts a chemical attack on random countries?

Surely not Nigeria or Congo. Everybody's going to look to the US, Russia, China, UK, and France to solve the problem. And that's just the way things are because those 5 countries have the greatest potential to enforce the laws.


Though, again, if you ask me, everybody is responsible for "policing" the world.

They are being protected under international law created by security institutions... so the least they can do is help enforce these laws (whether that be simply denouncing countries who break the law or being involved in political course of actions).

 

[kkck]

Ok, I think I have finally gone insane. I keep reading the good news about NK ending their nuclear testing but.... Why is this good news? Isn't it insane, if not stupid, to frame this around trump? Didn't NK end their testing and whatnot because they already have nukes capable of reaching the US and thus became a nuclear state? And then the news that this is somehow a victory for trump.... How? Of course, it would be asinine to blame trump for NK now having nukes, they have been working at this for decades, but trump didn't really do anything here.

Now the NK negotiations make sense to me.... NK offers to end a program that is already completed. And the US isn't going to meet NK in terms of NK surrendering or anything of the sort... But rather as a fellow nuclear state.

Or am I completely misunderstanding this?

 

[Nemispelled]

Ok, I think I have finally gone insane. I keep reading the good news about NK ending their nuclear testing but.... Why is this good news? Isn't it insane, if not stupid, to frame this around trump? Didn't NK end their testing and whatnot because they already have nukes capable of reaching the US and thus became a nuclear state? And then the news that this is somehow a victory for trump.... How? Of course, it would be asinine to blame trump for NK now having nukes, they have been working at this for decades, but trump didn't really do anything here.

Now the NK negotiations make sense to me.... NK offers to end a program that is already completed. And the US isn't going to meet NK in terms of NK surrendering or anything of the sort... But rather as a fellow nuclear state.

Or am I completely misunderstanding this?

Not sure if you are misunderstanding this, but the nuclear conflict between the US and NK is a lot more complicated than just somebody's political victory.

Before I highlight a few important points, I do want to mention that we still have no clue what will come out of Trump's meeting with Kim Jong-Un. It's far too early to tell; therefore, I really have no opinion about its outcome.


Anyways, on to my statements:

While North Korea did somewhat establish itself to be a "nuclear state" among global powers, its nuclear technology is still far behind that of modern ICBMs created by countries like the US and Russia.

Let's take the Hwasong-15 as an example. It is one of NK's latest and best ICBM, yet it can only carry half the payload of what the US was capable of 50-60 years ago. And it is still highly questionable whether North Korea can successfully deliver a missile that will survive re-entry into the atmosphere.

Sure, they hit a significant milestone in their nuclear developments, but progress and improvements can always be made if they're allowed to conduct additional missile tests.



Second, NK stopping its missile tests is a great relief for countries in the region who are uncomfortable with their ICBM tests. For people who live on the other side of the world, it may not seem like a big deal... but for countries who neighbor North Korea, it is a lot of pressure that gets lifted off their shoulders.

Think about the civilians in Japan or Hawaii who receive false missile warnings/alerts about a North Korean ICBM approaching... It's not something that families want to hear or experience.

And Japan certainly doesn't like it when a North Korean missile lands in the waters of the Sea of Japan. It certainly interferes with their daily activities and environment.

To put it quite simply, the US' allies will benefit a lot if North Korea agrees to stop its nuclear missile tests, especially since the Korean war never formally ended.



Third, it is kind of a big deal if Kim Jong-Un decided to denuclearize the entire Korean Peninsula.

His predecessors, Kim Il-Sung and Kim Jong-Il, took a hard-line stance on the nuclear advancement of the DPRK. Trump negotiating a deal that would denuclearize the Korean Peninsula would basically be a reversal of North Korean tradition.

This would ensure peace between the two Koreas and restore stability in the region.




Regardless, whether or not this counts as a "Trump Victory" is of very little importance to me. The more important matter here is being reassured that our allies, South Korea and Japan, are safe and well-protected.

Although, I will add that Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and South Korean President Moon Jae-In have credited Trump with North Korea's recent willingness to negotiate denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

You can take that any way you want, though, many others seem to have also agreed with those assertions.

 

[kkck]

Not sure if you are misunderstanding this, but the nuclear conflict between the US and NK is a lot more complicated than just somebody's political victory.

Before I highlight a few important points, I do want to mention that we still have no clue what will come out of Trump's meeting with Kim Jong-Un. It's far too early to tell; therefore, I really have no opinion about its outcome.

Anyways, on to my statements:

While North Korea did somewhat establish itself to be a "nuclear state" among global powers, its nuclear technology is still far behind that of modern ICBMs created by countries like the US and Russia.

Let's take the Hwasong-15 as an example. It is one of NK's latest and best ICBM, yet it can only carry half the payload of what the US was capable of 50-60 years ago. And it is still highly questionable whether North Korea can successfully deliver a missile that will survive re-entry into the atmosphere.

Sure, they hit a significant milestone in their nuclear developments, but progress and improvements can always be made if they're allowed to conduct additional missile tests.

Second, NK stopping its missile tests is a great relief for countries in the region who are uncomfortable with their ICBM tests. For people who live on the other side of the world, it may not seem like a big deal... but for countries who neighbor North Korea, it is a lot of pressure that gets lifted off their shoulders.

Think about the civilians in Japan or Hawaii who receive false missile warnings/alerts about a North Korean ICBM approaching... It's not something that families want to hear or experience.

And Japan certainly doesn't like it when a North Korean missile lands in the waters of the Sea of Japan. It certainly interferes with their daily activities and environment.

To put it quite simply, the US' allies will benefit a lot if North Korea agrees to stop its nuclear missile tests, especially since the Korean war never formally ended.

Third, it is kind of a big deal if Kim Jong-Un decided to denuclearize the entire Korean Peninsula.

His predecessors, Kim Il-Sung and Kim Jong-Il, took a hard-line stance on the nuclear advancement of the DPRK. Trump negotiating a deal that would denuclearize the Korean Peninsula would basically be a reversal of North Korean tradition.

This would ensure peace between the two Koreas and restore stability in the region.

Regardless, whether or not this counts as a "Trump Victory" is of very little importance to me. The more important matter here is being reassured that our allies, South Korea and Japan, are safe and well-protected.

Although, I will add that Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and South Korean President Moon Jae-In have credited Trump with North Korea's recent willingness to negotiate denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

You can take that any way you want, though, many others seem to have also agreed with those assertions.

I am more or less aware of most you brought up here, I am just unsure of how it meshes up together.

Anyways, as far as NK denuclearizing.... Trump said that but I found no real reference to NK specifically saying that. If anything I haven't found anything about them even wanting to denuclearize. It would even be incoherent to them to do so as for them nukes are basically leverage and it would be inconsistent with several decades worth of their own policy. All I have found regarding what NK has said so far is basically "yep, testing is over. We got nukes which we can place in intercontinental ballistic missiles or w/e". In that sense, what I read so far into this is that basically NK ended its testing program because there is no more reason to test, they won, they got what they wanted. So this doesn't seem to be a result of trump or japan or SK pressure, it is simply a logical obvious next step for NK. Imagine if NK said "Yeah, we got nukes but we are going to continue testing.". The logical reply to that would be "SOOOOOOOO........ why are you still testing if you have nukes?".


So again, you have the secret meetings with mike pompeo could have gone for instance. Pompeo meets them and they go "yeah, we are willing to end testing.". Which... they were going to do anyways because it would be literally stupid to continue otherwise. Mike goes back, trump starts bragging about how his stances forced them to... do what they were going to do ANYWAYS. And they set up the meeting which doesn't make sense in the context presented by trump. Dunno, I just read all this stuff and it just seems that NK went ahead and played the trump administration like a fiddle.

 

[Nemispelled]

I am more or less aware of most you brought up here, I am just unsure of how it meshes up together.

Anyways, as far as NK denuclearizing.... Trump said that but I found no real reference to NK specifically saying that. If anything I haven't found anything about them even wanting to denuclearize. It would even be incoherent to them to do so as for them nukes are basically leverage and it would be inconsistent with several decades worth of their own policy. All I have found regarding what NK has said so far is basically "yep, testing is over. We got nukes which we can place in intercontinental ballistic missiles or w/e". In that sense, what I read so far into this is that basically NK ended its testing program because there is no more reason to test, they won, they got what they wanted. So this doesn't seem to be a result of trump or japan or SK pressure, it is simply a logical obvious next step for NK. Imagine if NK said "Yeah, we got nukes but we are going to continue testing.". The logical reply to that would be "SOOOOOOOO........ why are you still testing if you have nukes?".


So again, you have the secret meetings with mike pompeo could have gone for instance. Pompeo meets them and they go "yeah, we are willing to end testing.". Which... they were going to do anyways because it would be literally stupid to continue otherwise. Mike goes back, trump starts bragging about how his stances forced them to... do what they were going to do ANYWAYS. And they set up the meeting which doesn't make sense in the context presented by trump. Dunno, I just read all this stuff and it just seems that NK went ahead and played the trump administration like a fiddle.

I see. Well, whether North Korea is willing to denuclearize is still very much a large gamble, but I suppose that the subject will come up in the talks between Trump and Kim Jong-Un. Though, if I remember correctly, the idea of NK willing to denuclearize came from the South Korean government, who has held frequent meetings and dialogue with the North over the last several weeks/months. That information was then relayed to the U.S.

It is possible that the U.S. has also already started negotiating part of the deal behind close doors, but since that information is classified, there is no way to tell at this point.


Most of what I heard about NK's relaxed stance on its missile tests came from the South Korean and Japanese government. According to representatives from nearby countries in the region, North Korea has started to feel the economic pressure and will likely run out of funds by this October. The sanctions are making it substantially more difficult for North Korea to operate and sustain its resources.

Personally, I haven't heard anything about North Korea giving up nuclear tests because it has established itself as a "nuclear state".

They seem like the type to want to improve and surpass the United States' nuclear capability, but then again, it starts getting into a lot of speculation here.


As for North Korea playing other countries for a fool, it isn't the first time that something like this has come up. It has happened to several administrations in the past where NK pretended to abort its nuclear missile testing, but resumed it after some time.

Either way, there's nothing the US, South Korea, or Japan can do at this point... other than maintain the sanctions and maximum pressure on North Korea.

Kim Jong-Un can do whatever he wants (like flipping sides at the last minute), but he'd be a fool to think that the US, SK, and Japan couldn't do the same.

 

[kkck]

I see. Well, whether North Korea is willing to denuclearize is still very much a large gamble, but I suppose that the subject will come up in the talks between Trump and Kim Jong-Un. Though, if I remember correctly, the idea of NK willing to denuclearize came from the South Korean government, who has held frequent meetings and dialogue with the North over the last several weeks/months. That information was then relayed to the U.S.

It is possible that the U.S. has also already started negotiating part of the deal behind close doors, but since that information is classified, there is no way to tell at this point.


Most of what I heard about NK's relaxed stance on its missile tests came from the South Korean and Japanese government. According to representatives from nearby countries in the region, North Korea has started to feel the economic pressure and will likely run out of funds by this October. The sanctions are making it substantially more difficult for North Korea to operate and sustain its resources.

Personally, I haven't heard anything about North Korea giving up nuclear tests because it has established itself as a "nuclear state".

They seem like the type to want to improve and surpass the United States' nuclear capability, but then again, it starts getting into a lot of speculation here.


As for North Korea playing other countries for a fool, it isn't the first time that something like this has come up. It has happened to several administrations in the past where NK pretended to abort its nuclear missile testing, but resumed it after some time.

Either way, there's nothing the US, South Korea, or Japan can do at this point... other than maintain the sanctions and maximum pressure on North Korea.

Kim Jong-Un can do whatever he wants (like flipping sides at the last minute), but he'd be a fool to think that the US, SK, and Japan couldn't do the same.

This are excerpts from an ABC article that talk about what Kim said:

Kim announced his country would "no longer need any nuclear tests, mid and long and ICBM rocket tests," and therefore is suspending nuclear tests and launches of intercontinental ballistic missiles starting Saturday.

The communist country also says it is also shutting down the Poongye-ri nuclear test site where six underground tests have taken place.

North Korea has "verified the completion of nuclear weapons" and now "the Party and our nation will focus all its efforts towards socialist economic development," Kim was quoted saying at a meeting of the central committee of the ruling Workers' Party of Korea convened Friday. The state TV stressed the meeting discussed policy issues related to a "new stage" in an "historic period."

If you take just the first bit it kinda sounds like what has been reported so far. But the second bit is basically telling the world, "yep, program completed, NK GOT THEM NUKES BITCHES!!!1!!! Well, that or he is telling the world one thing and his party another. NK could continue to make new nukes as fast as they can and they wouldn't need any testing.

As for shutting down the test site... Weren't there reports a few months ago that there were concerns the place, supposedly a mountain with tunnels or something, could collapse due to the testing and release a bunch of tests worth of radiation if they continued tests? Shutting down a a nuclear test site that risks releasing shit ton of radiation to the environment does not seem like much of a compromise.

IIRC the bit about NK being willing to denuclearize came from the US government, allegedly from their secret talks. But NK has not made any public statements on that issue. Maybe, hopefully, they will soon but until then it kinda seems like the US government got ahead of itself. I would argue this should at least have been framed a bit more conservatively, if you see white house staments on this it almost sounds like a done deal.

When it comes to nukes I don't think it's an issue of having better nukes than the other guy TBH. A single nuke can already vaporize a city. How do you improve from that? A nuke that can vaporize a whole state or province? You could do that simply with more nukes anyways.

 

[Nemispelled]

This are excerpts from an ABC article that talk about what Kim said:

If you take just the first bit it kinda sounds like what has been reported so far. But the second bit is basically telling the world, "yep, program completed, NK GOT THEM NUKES BITCHES!!!1!!! Well, that or he is telling the world one thing and his party another. NK could continue to make new nukes as fast as they can and they wouldn't need any testing.

As for shutting down the test site... Weren't there reports a few months ago that there were concerns the place, supposedly a mountain with tunnels or something, could collapse due to the testing and release a bunch of tests worth of radiation if they continued tests? Shutting down a a nuclear test site that risks releasing shit ton of radiation to the environment does not seem like much of a compromise.

IIRC the bit about NK being willing to denuclearize came from the US government, allegedly from their secret talks. But NK has not made any public statements on that issue. Maybe, hopefully, they will soon but until then it kinda seems like the US government got ahead of itself. I would argue this should at least have been framed a bit more conservatively, if you see white house staments on this it almost sounds like a done deal.

When it comes to nukes I don't think it's an issue of having better nukes than the other guy TBH. A single nuke can already vaporize a city. How do you improve from that? A nuke that can vaporize a whole state or province? You could do that simply with more nukes anyways.

Well, to me, it sounds like Kim Jong-Un was given a way out of this mess by proclaiming that it has "mastered" the art of creating nuclear weapons, while being unchallenged by the US (obviously, the US could make this situation worse by saying their technology is still decades inferior to modern ICBMs).

His choices are either accepting a loophole to avoid further embarrassment, or digging yourself into a hole that is too deep to get out later.

The US knows, and everybody else in the world knows, that NK has barely been successful in creating nuclear ICBMs, but of course, the United States just wants to get this whole "North Korea conflict" over with. So they will obviously agree to keep quiet and just let Kim Jong-Un announce to his country that they have reached a "historic-changing period in time".

The real question is whether Kim Il-Sung and Kim Jong-Il actually intended "nuclear success" to be defined as North Korea's current state.



And yeah, there were reports that North Korea's past nuclear tests caused a series of earthquakes, which reduced the stability of the mountains and tunnel networks that make up the testing site.

Maybe Kim Jong-Un feared that the radiation would be harmful to the environment; though, I have doubts about that since I don't remember a time where he actually cared about his own people and the state of his country.



Having better nukes than the US may not have been a big deal, but clearly, it's nuclear arsenal had to be formidable enough to counter an attack from the United States.

It's still questionable whether the Hwasong-15 could survive re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere, let alone be able to escape all of the US' defense mechanisms.

The model of North Korea's ICBMs are still outdated and it's reliability is pretty low. Any leader would have little confidence in their nuclear capability if they were given North Korea's missiles.

Compared to the United States, North Korea knows that it is still no more of a threat than it was years ago. In other words, I'm not sure if there has been any real success or advancement in their nuclear technology.

 

[James Rye]

Man, this feels like a repeat of Irak war. Bolton and Bibi doing their thing with fake news just now with Trump as President and not Bush and with nuclear weapons and not chemical ones.

 

[M3J]

So basically you're saying that the US shouldn't do anything about the attack in Douma because of our government's current immigration policy?

I'm aware of all of this, and I'm not on-board with Trump's immigration policy at all, but that doesn't really have much to do with a direct and precise military response to countries gassing their own citizens.

I also don't see how Trump doubling back on a shitload of things is much of a talking point at all, that's just second nature for him. It doesn't make the airstrikes wrong on that basis though IMO.

Yeah, what's the point of doing something like this if it makes the situation even worse and ends up taking more life, but we still refuse to give asylum to the refugees? It's kinda related to the countries gassing their own citizens, especially when they know their citizens aren't likely to be accepted in the West.

I am not sure this applies to the situation. From what has been reported at least, the bombings ended up being precision strikes to military related areas, presumably where the gas weapons were being made. In that specific regard, yeah, the bombings won't stop civilian casualties but... that's not relevant to an attack which targeted military facilities which produced weapons used against civilians.

The attack wasn't a "trump" thing. It was a coalition between USA, france and britain. It's not accurate nor honest to think of this simply in trump terms. And this has happened before, just last year syria was bombed by the US for something else (can't remember what, maybe civilian bombings or gas). Right now the only difference was that this time around trump was talking about backing off syria (iirc)... And of course there is always tension there because russia actively supports assad. But ultimately this sort of response could easily be expected from any US president, be it trump, obama or bush....

If the report is true, then that's good.

 

[xi0]

Yeah, what's the point of doing something like this if it makes the situation even worse and ends up taking more life, but we still refuse to give asylum to the refugees? It's kinda related to the countries gassing their own citizens, especially when they know their citizens aren't likely to be accepted in the West.

They were gassing them when Obama was in office, so that point is far from coherent.

 

[kkck]

So, is the US on a warpath to iran? Iran is substantially larger than irak, has several times its population and a real army. Along with more allies. On the off chance this does happen, it would make us look back fondly on the irak war as the good old days when existing adjectives were just about good enough to describe how moronic something is.

 

[James Rye]

Well, Bibi for one wants war. Would make sure that nobody throws him into prison for corruption.

 

[kkck]

Damn, so trump and his cronnies' iran strategy is to basically be really really tough. How do they expect to do any of the stuff they are saying without allies? With the US withdrawing from the iran deal and europe and other allies scrambling to keep it together the situation is more like the US and Europe are quite literally enemies on this issue. What allies would support new ultra omega super duper ultra instinct super saiyan tough sanctions on iran after the stunt trump just pulled here? Certainly not europe... china and russia are so far siding with europe on this issue.

 

[Newkerzy]

In other news, ABC just cancelled Roseanne. Pretty sure she was warned about this early on, but she just went and gutted herself.

Whoopsie.

 

[M3J]

Probably sacrificed her show to show how sensitive left cucks are.

 

[kkck]

Seriously? Trump backed out of the g7 joint statement? How petty and pathetic is that? If he had a problem with it why not say it at the meeting with everyone? What a coward.

 

[M3J]

Trying to isolate the US