[ldrews]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-November-09, 13:53, said:

https://www.msn.com/...-cut/ar-BBEMbt7

So Wall Street is whining if it doesn't get it precious Trump-approved "corporate tax cut" in 2018 (to the tune of $1.5 trillion dollars over the next 10 years). Why am I not surprised?

I am not exactly sure why we believe the business community is going to reinvest this tax cut by hiring more people on Main Street when we know this tax cut will stay in house to boost the corporations' bottom lines or be shared almost exclusively with shareholders to increase the value of their stock through stock buyback programs.

Our highway, bridges, and airports are crumbling but we are beholden to the special interests of Corporate America. Corporate tax cuts take priority over long overdue and needed infrastructure investment and rehabilitation. Go figure!

Highways, bridges, and airports do not contribute to political campaigns!

[jjbrr]

 jjbrr, on 2017-September-26, 11:47, said:

Judge Moore is a pedophile who beats his wife, so take his word for what it's worth. I don't know if that's true. I was informed it's factual.

obviously

[hrothgar]

 ldrews, on 2017-November-08, 22:27, said:

and the problem of North Korea is being addressed.

Let's start with this one: How is the the problem of North Korea being "addressed"

1. What constitutes an acceptable solution to the problem of North Korea?

2. Rex Tillerson has stated that the United States will start negotiations with North Korea if North Korea stops missile tests and stops nuclear tests.
The United States has also ruled out regime change if the North Koreans come to the table

Does this address the solution? If so, how is it any different than the situation before Trump took office?

3. Alternatively, do you believe that a military conflict will be necessary?

If so, what would constitute a successful outcome?
How many South Koreans would need to die before you judge that your successful outcome had turned into a mistake?

[ldrews]

 hrothgar, on 2017-November-09, 16:03, said:

Let's start with this one: How is the the problem of North Korea being "addressed"

1. What constitutes an acceptable solution to the problem of North Korea?

2. Rex Tillerson has stated that the United States will start negotiations with North Korea if North Korea stops missile tests and stops nuclear tests.
The United States has also ruled out regime change if the North Koreans come to the table

Does this address the solution? If so, how is it any different than the situation before Trump took office?

3. Alternatively, do you believe that a military conflict will be necessary?

If so, what would constitute a successful outcome?
How many South Koreans would need to die before you judge that your successful outcome had turned into a mistake?

I honestly have no idea of how to resolve the problem of North Korea without a lot of people dying. Do you have a solution?

[hrothgar]

 ldrews, on 2017-November-09, 18:47, said:

I honestly have no idea of how to resolve the problem of North Korea without a lot of people dying. Do you have a solution?

Sounds like you are advocating that the US should attacks even if it means a decent chance of losing Seoul....

If not, please clarify what it means to "address" North Korea

[kenberg]

Maybe I will climb into this. N Korea is one of the many problems that I have no good ideas about. Maybe the Great War could have been prevented by wise diplomacy. Maybe the Second World War could have been prevented. Neither of them were prevented. I assume that just about everyone is in favor of preventing nuclear war in Korea or anywhere. I think it is far from clear that we can.

Negotiations? Sure. Let's do that. Negotiations work best if all parties involved have at least some common views and interests. Do we? I guess we will find out. Throughout history lots of people have killed lots of other people in war. Learn from history so we do not repeat history? A fine slogan. Also a lot easier to say than to do.

I saw Thornton Wilder's The Skin of our Teeth in the 1960s and it always seemed about right. But now I see a lot seems to have been cribbed cribbed from Finnegan's Wake. Maybe I should read it. At any rate, I first took an interest in what was going on beyond my neighborhood when the North Koreans crossed into South Korea on June 25, 1950. I have never much liked movie sequels. Star Wars was great. The first one, I mean.

[ldrews]

 hrothgar, on 2017-November-09, 23:20, said:

Sounds like you are advocating that the US should attacks even if it means a decent chance of losing Seoul....

If not, please clarify what it means to "address" North Korea

Please, I am not advocating anything. But North Korea is becoming a significant threat to the US and others. What do you advocate? Leave them alone to finish developing their nuclear capability, possible becoming victims of nuclear extortion in the future or worse? Preemptively attacking North Korea to destroy its nuclear capabilities at the risk of millions dying? China seems reluctant, for good reasons from their point of view, to exercise their influence/control. Exactly what do you recommend?

[jjbrr]

ldrews, hrothgar has said many times, and many of us agree, that there is no clear answer. that is why he's asking you what you mean by "addressing" NK.

[ldrews]

 jjbrr, on 2017-November-10, 08:51, said:

ldrews, hrothgar has said many times, and many of us agree, that there is no clear answer. that is why he's asking you what you mean by "addressing" NK.

"Addressing NK" to me means trying to find a solution. Actively trying to find a solution. Not kicking the can down the road like the previous administrations have done, letting the problem get worse.

Do you have an alternative?

[barmar]

 ldrews, on 2017-November-09, 18:47, said:

I honestly have no idea of how to resolve the problem of North Korea without a lot of people dying. Do you have a solution?

Of course we don't -- it's a really hard problem, possibly insoluble.

But you're the one who claimed that Trump is addressing it. Unless you're talking about his hawkish rhetoric (e.g. alluding to the atom bombs we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during a speech in Japan), I haven't seen any indication of this.

[ldrews]

 barmar, on 2017-November-10, 09:56, said:

Of course we don't -- it's a really hard problem, possibly insoluble.

But you're the one who claimed that Trump is addressing it. Unless you're talking about his hawkish rhetoric (e.g. alluding to the atom bombs we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during a speech in Japan), I haven't seen any indication of this.

Do you equate addressing it with solving it?

[hrothgar]

 ldrews, on 2017-November-10, 10:42, said:

Do you equate addressing it with solving it?

No. However, you seem to be claiming that Trump is doing something different and better than Obama.

What is it that he is doing?
How is it different?
How will you measure success and failure?

[hrothgar]

FWIW, few quick thoughts of my own regarding the situation in North Korea.

First and foremost, I categorically reject any thought that the United States should take military action against North Korea.

Back in 2003, the United States launched a preemptive attack against Iraq under the pretense that the Iraqi government was building weapons of mass destruction.

1. The US government got it wrong. The Bush administration misrepresented evidence regarding weapons of mass destruction.
2. US military actions lead to the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and destabilized the Middle East to this day

There have been a lot of consequences of this action.

We wasted trillions of dollars
We killed hundreds of thousands of people
And, last but not least, we destroyed our credibility wen it comes to claiming that we "need" to take preemptive military action

Assume for the moment that we attack North Korea and this leads the North Korean regime to annihilate Seoul, killing somewhere between a quarter and half million people.
Even though it was the North Koreans who launched the artillery shells, the US will be blamed because this is a highly likely outcome of our cowboy diplomacy.

The US maybe a hyper power, but we can not survive the fallout of killing this many innocent people yet again because we're "afraid".

From my own perspective, the best outcome to this situation would be a set of trilateral talks between the United States, China, and South Korea trying to come to an accommodation regarding what the Korean peninsula would look after the collapse of the North Korean regime. I don't know what this would look like... Would there be one Korea or two? Would the US maintain any kind of military presence in South Korea? There's a LOT of stuff to be worked out here.

However, once folks have reached an agreement on this front, we might be able to get the Chinese to actually take necessary actions to move things into a good direction.

These are the sorts of actions that we need.

Not stupid statements about "Little Rocket man"
Not begging / pleading for the Chinese to do something without setting up the preconditions for success
Not threats that we're going to nuke the North Koreans
Not undercutting the State Department

Oh yeah, actually appointing an ambassador to South Korea might be a good idea.

[Al_U_Card]

NK and SK, NVn and SVn. Communist vs. Corporate. The profits of war used to be treasure or territory or slaves but now it has become mostly about generating business. Defence contracts. The bigger the military, the bigger the contracts and the greater the impetus for instigating conflict.

Since NK has no oil (petro-dollar stability/hegemony is a consideration elsewhere, including Vietnam where offshore oil leases as well as helicopter purchases were in play) but they do have nukes, then they are a magnet for conflict. What kind and to what extent likely depends on what the Mil-Ind complex sees as its requirements. People (and their deaths) are just a means to an end.

[olegru]

I recently signed up for free Stanford online course "The Threat of Nuclear Terrorism" (https://lagunita.sta...ism%2BFall2017/)
Very interesting but extremely sad and scary lectures and discussions.
There were several discussions about NK with no real answer of course, but

 hrothgar, on 2017-November-10, 12:16, said:

set of trilateral talks between the United States, China, and South Korea trying to come to an accommodation regarding what the Korean peninsula would look after the collapse of the North Korean regime.

seems like the only possible approach to try to solve that problem.

[ldrews]

 hrothgar, on 2017-November-10, 11:15, said:

No. However, you seem to be claiming that Trump is doing something different and better than Obama.

What is it that he is doing?
How is it different?
How will you measure success and failure?

Well, I don't remember Obama muscling China about it. Or announcing that anyone doing business with North Korea would not be able to do business with the US. Or locating 3 aircraft carriers in the North Korean area. Nor making North Korea, and everyone else, nervous as a prelude to actually negotiating something that might work (although I would not expect North Korea to keep any agreements based on their 25 year history).

I would measure success as excellent if North Korea denuclearizes peacefully, success as moderate if force is required, and failure if nothing changes.

How about you? How would you measure success. What would you suggest is a better approach? Or are you just taking cheap shots because you have nothing to offer?

[ldrews]

 olegru, on 2017-November-10, 14:04, said:

I recently signed up for free Stanford online course "The Threat of Nuclear Terrorism" (https://lagunita.sta...ism%2BFall2017/)
Very interesting but extremely sad and scary lectures and discussions.
There were several discussions about NK with no real answer of course, but



seems like the only possible approach to try to solve that problem.

The only problem is that North Korea has failed to keep any of its agreements negotiated during the last 25 years. What makes us think that North Korea will do so in the future?

[olegru]

 ldrews, on 2017-November-10, 14:44, said:

The only problem is that North Korea has failed to keep any of its agreements negotiated during the last 25 years. What makes us think that North Korea will do so in the future?

The simple fact the NK is not the part of proposed of trilateral talks.

[Winstonm]

You have to wonder where some parrots posters get their ideas:

Quote

on Saturday, Trump tweeted:

Presidents and their administrations have been talking to North Korea for 25 years, agreements made and massive amounts of money paid … hasn’t worked, agreements violated before the ink was dry, making fools of U.S. negotiators. Sorry, but only one thing will work!

[hrothgar]

 Winstonm, on 2017-November-10, 15:24, said:

You have to wonder where some parrots posters get their ideas:

What I find truly remarkable if Drews is so absolutely convinced that Trump is doing the right thing and represents a radical departure from the Obama administration but is utter incapable of describing what it is that he approves of.

its almost as if acting like an idiot on Twitter is the be-all and end-all of foreign policy for Drews.