Jump to content

DRAGONMOUNT

A WHEEL OF TIME COMMUNITY

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Tyzack said:

 

The answer provided is the answer to the question.

 

In diplomatic negotiations recongition means everything. The US has ignored the North Koreans since the Korean War, and the rest of the world (less China and Russia...and I guess switzerland?) have gone along with it.

Maybe that was a mistake.

 

 

6 hours ago, Tyzack said:

 

The reason why the North is talking is because they have determined that Trump is an idiot who will do anything for a press shot, so they continue to build a missile program while they slow walk negotiations with the end goal being the same, that, with time, they will force the world to recognize them as a defacto nuclear state.

I think you're underestimating Pompeo. This is his show.

Trump may be getting the credit but Pompeo is doing the work and he's not a guy I would want to cross.

With that said even if you're right about that I think fake negotiations are better than actual war preparations.

 

6 hours ago, Tyzack said:

Or, more examples; the US has been silent (if not aiding in) the falmon/genocide/humanitarian disaster/whatever you want to call it in Yemen,

We do this sort of thing routinely under various administrations. 

Also how is this an example of the U.S. Being ignored?

 

 

6 hours ago, Tyzack said:

 

we are (or maybe aren't) withdrawing for Syria and letting (or maybe not) Turkey invade and attack the Kurds (or we might not be),

Not an example of us being ignores.

Also what do you want, endless war in the mideast?

Should we just invade Turkey and get it over with?

 

6 hours ago, Tyzack said:

we have done nothing about the genocide of the ryohinga in Mayanmar,

Not an example etc etc.

This isn't our business we need to stop being the world police.

 

6 hours ago, Tyzack said:

 

have done nothing about the failure of the splitting of the Sudan,

Not an example etc etc

 

6 hours ago, Tyzack said:

 

are sitting on the sidelines as Nicorauga heads towards civil war, there's a crisis in Venuzwula

Not an example etc etc etc 

 

6 hours ago, Tyzack said:

 

, the Sudai regime kills at will, whom we also side with over our allies (and neighbors, the Canadians) re; improsining political dissidant, and we are tempting the world economy towards recession, 

I agree here. The Saudis are not our friends we should cut ties immediately.

 

6 hours ago, Tyzack said:

So yeah, everyone is either ignoring us, rolling their eyes at us, or some combination of the two.

Changing the goalposts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're an isolationist, so by definition you would rather the US be ignored.

 

Simply put since the end of WWII, other countries, whenever there has been an international crisis, have looked to Washington for advice/guidence/a role model to follow. They do not do this any more. This is an abdication of leadership.

 

As a corralary to that, the US has been drastically cutting back on non-military defense spending overseas. When people in foriegn countries see one country building them roads, bridges, ports, mines, infrastructure or what have you, and another country building military bases on the condition that the ruling government allows them to, and allows US soldiers on their soil, which country do you think those people will look towards more kindly?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope this isn't behind the paywall:

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/world/2019-01-18/trumps-foreign-policy-no-longer-unpredictable

 

Quote

It is possible to identify a singular Trump administration foreign policy, as the president’s team coalesces around his ideas. This policy consists of a narrow, transactional relationship with other nations, a preference for authoritarian governments over other democracies, a mercantilist approach to international economic policy, a general disregard for human rights and the rule of law, and the promotion of nationalism and unilateralism at the expense of multilateralism.

 

Ie: Bad

 

 

 

Quote

 

By the fall of 2017, the second phase of the Trump administration’s foreign policy—that of unilateral action—had begun. In this period, which continues to the present day, Trump has tried to bypass the formal deliberative interagency process in his decision-making and has made his preferences clear. In December 2017, over the objections of his team, he announced he was moving the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. In May of last year, he withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal. He imposed tariffs on friends and rivals alike. He renewed his criticism of NATO at the 2018 Brussels summit and pushed hard to pull U.S. troops out of Syria. Perhaps most famously, he decided to meet with Kim in Singapore without consulting his national security cabinet and also made the unilateral decision to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki and proceeded to defy his advisers by embracing the Russian leader at the summit’s press conference.

 

To facilitate this shift, Trump needed a new team that would empower him, not stand in his way. This was the story of 2018. It began with the removal of Tillerson, McMaster, and Cohn in a three-week period in March and April. Their respective replacements—Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, and Larry Kudlow—all had one thing in common: personal loyalty to Trump. The trend continued with UN Ambassador Nikki Haley’s departure and concluded with Mattis’ resignation on December 21 following Trump’s announcement of a U.S. troop withdrawal from Syria.


 In general, however, Trump now has a team that seeks not to minimize the impact of his decisions but to maximize it.

This unified foreign policy is one in which the Trump administration has 
no permanent friends and no permanent enemies. It takes a transactional approach with all nations, places little value in historical ties, and seeks immediate benefits ranging from trade and procurement to diplomatic support. 

The administration has embraced nationalism and disdained multilateralism as part of its overarching philosophical framework—something evident in speeches by Trump, Bolton, and Pompeo. The administration also has little regard for democracy and human rights, except in the cases of Cuba, Iran, and Venezuela. This worldview is manifest in Washington’s opposition to the European Union, support for authoritarian leaders who defy international norms, and withdrawal from international organizations and treaties. 

Paradoxically, the advent of a more unified and predictable U.S. foreign policy is likely to weaken American influence and destabilize the international order. A deeply divided Trump administration was the best case for those who believe in the United States’ postwar strategy, defined by strong alliances, an open global economy, and broad support for democracy, the rule of law, and human rights. Because Trump was never going to change his worldview, his administration has had to be marked by either division or agreement on his terms. We now have the latter. Thus begins phase three—the impact of a unified Trump administration on the world.

 

 

 

Quote

 

 

 

 

Edited by Tyzack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1094031561861881856?s=21

 

Quote

My representatives have just left North Korea after a very productive meeting and an agreed upon time and date for the second Summit with Kim Jong Un. It will take place in Hanoi, Vietnam, on February 27 & 28. I look forward to seeing Chairman Kim & advancing the cause of peace!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Nolder said:

I find his push that we are supposedly doing better and better with NK, despite numerous UN and Domestic agencies saying otherwise.

 

Like... Is it A) He is lying again, B) He knows something we dont and EVERYONE ELSE is wrong, or C) He doesn't actually know what going on and is just making stuff up?

 

I ask because he says we are well on our way to a de-nuclearized NK, yet loads of almost monthly reports from the UN and other agencies say otherwise and that NK is just moving them to more secure and spread out locations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Nolder said:

Consider the same people told you there were WMDs in Iraq.

 

So... am I supposed to believe our own intelligence agencies and global governing bodies or am I supposed to believe our President, who gets his information from our own intelligence agencies and who has a habit of ignoring his own intelligence agencies to make up his own facts and numbers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/9/2019 at 5:32 PM, Lenlo said:

So... am I supposed to believe our own intelligence agencies and global governing bodies or am I supposed to believe our President, who gets his information from our own intelligence agencies and who has a habit of ignoring his own intelligence agencies to make up his own facts and numbers?

Well, intelligence agencies have been known to be wrong (WM's in Iraq, assessment that the Castro regime would fold up at the first sign of AMerican/exile resistance prior to the Bay of Pigs being the most famous) the intelligence agencies also have an institutional interest in maintaining the status quo. As for Global governing bodies, who exactly voted them into power and exactly what expertise do they have that is not tainted by their own institutional biases and influence by member states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CUBAREY said:

Well, intelligence agencies have been known to be wrong (WM's in Iraq, assessment that the Castro regime would fold up at the first sign of AMerican/exile resistance prior to the Bay of Pigs being the most famous) the intelligence agencies also have an institutional interest in maintaining the status quo. As for Global governing bodies, who exactly voted them into power and exactly what expertise do they have that is not tainted by their own institutional biases and influence by member states.

Alright... how is any of this unique to them? Why is their opinion invalided by these points but Trumps is not? What expertise does he have that isn't invalidated by bias?

 

Fact is, everyone other than Trump is saying NK is still working on nukes and is hiding them. Even if they had only 1/10th the credibility Trump does, which they have far more based on Trumps consistent ability to lie through his teeth,  the sheer volume of reports disagreeing with him indicates that not all is right there.

 

Like, you try to invalidate our own intelligence agencies here, but are you forgetting thats where Trump should be getting his info to? How is Trump, a man who has 0 qualifications for inspecting another country for this or for foreign policy, more qualified than the intelligence agencies he is supposed to be getting his information from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Lenlo said:

Why is their opinion invalided by these points but Trumps is not? What expertise does he have that isn't invalidated by bias?

First of all, take a deep breath and relax a little.

No one here said that anyone's opinion is invalid.

 

I said use caution. Maybe I should have said take what they say with a pinch of salt? 

Regardless I hope you take my meaning.

 

Cuba went a step further and pointed out that many of these people and organizations might not necessarily have the same goals and ideals as you and I. Which is precisely why their track record appears to be bad at first glance.

 

You don't want any kind of war with North Korea, I can't say with 100% certainty that the CIA, UN, CFR, MI6, etc etc also do not want any kind of war with North Korea. And that's not to mention civilian politicians who have stakes in war industries.

 

I also can't say with 100% certainty that Trump has zero interest in a war. Or the inverse.  I am not saying you should listen to Trump. I am saying there are a lot of players in this game and none of their interests are served by keeping you reliably informed.

 

We are potentially playing with nuclear weapons here.

Use caution. That's all I got.

 

My personal opinion is that we've had like a 50 year stand off, Kim coming to the table instead of launching missiles can't be a bad thing. Maybe he's just biding his time? Could be. But until those missiles launch I won't consider it time wasted. If you are in favor of preemptive strikes I can't fault you but I do suggest at least being consistent and looking to Iran as well if that's the route you want to take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nolder said:

 

My personal opinion is that we've had like a 50 year stand off, Kim coming to the table instead of launching missiles can't be a bad thing. Maybe he's just biding his time? Could be. But until those missiles launch I won't consider it time wasted. If you are in favor of preemptive strikes I can't fault you but I do suggest at least being consistent and looking to Iran as well if that's the route you want to take.

 

There comes a point in process refinement where you no longer have to test every iteration, which is where the North now is. That the reports are saying is that, unlike what they're saying to Trump, the North has stopped neither building missiles or producing fissile material. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Tyzack said:

 

There comes a point in process refinement where you no longer have to test every iteration, which is where the North now is.

You're referring to missile technology or payload/warhead?

 

55 minutes ago, Tyzack said:

That the reports are saying is that, unlike what they're saying to Trump, the North has stopped neither building missiles or producing fissile material. 

Let's assume that's 100% true for the sake of discussion.

 

So what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Nolder said:

You're referring to missile technology or payload/warhead?

 

Let's assume that's 100% true for the sake of discussion.

 

So what?

 

1. Both. 

2. It's not denuclearization if you are still making nuclear weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tyzack said:

 

1. Both. 

So you're saying you believe NK either has or will soon have a nuclear missile with the speed, range, percsion, and payload equal to anything any other nuclear capable world power has? Including the United States and/or Russia?

 

1 minute ago, Tyzack said:

2. It's not denuclearization if you are still making nuclear weapons.

Ok. Let's talk this through. So Kim is lying. So what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Nolder said:

So you're saying you believe NK either has or will soon have a nuclear missile with the speed, range, percsion, and payload equal to anything any other nuclear capable world power has? Including the United States and/or Russia?

When it comes to Nukes, Precision, range and Speed are almost irrelevant. Having the capability of creating nukes, makes you a Nuclear power. Having shitty missiles, just makes you all the more dangerous to everyone... Friend or Foe.

 

US & Russia can say, we won't use nukes against each other because we'd destroy each other. 
But we can use them to precisely take out entire countries in the middle east if they both parties agree it needs to be taken out.

N. Korea is the short guy entering the table in a suicide vest, eyeing America as the biggest guy in the room and he wants to kick him in the nuts to show he's not a weakling. He makes the Russians nervous because his bomb might kill him to... But he kinda wants to see America get kicked in the Nuts.

 

35 minutes ago, Nolder said:

Ok. Let's talk this through. So Kim is lying. So what?

Kim's lying to Trump. 

Everyone else knows he's lying.

But Trump is spinning it as he's the master deal maker, when in reality he's being pomp and pimped, getting bribed by these officials, while they roll weapons in the background while he's to engorged in his extravagant dinner parties, parades, and flashy lights.

 

And here i'm thinking...

People disqualified Johnson in 2016, because he didn't know some random countries name/or why it was important. And then I look up and see this and just shake my freaking head.

Edited by SinisterDeath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Nolder said:

First of all, take a deep breath and relax a little.

No one here said that anyone's opinion is invalid.

 

I said use caution. Maybe I should have said take what they say with a pinch of salt? 

Regardless I hope you take my meaning.

 

Cuba went a step further and pointed out that many of these people and organizations might not necessarily have the same goals and ideals as you and I. Which is precisely why their track record appears to be bad at first glance.

 

You don't want any kind of war with North Korea, I can't say with 100% certainty that the CIA, UN, CFR, MI6, etc etc also do not want any kind of war with North Korea. And that's not to mention civilian politicians who have stakes in war industries.

 

I also can't say with 100% certainty that Trump has zero interest in a war. Or the inverse.  I am not saying you should listen to Trump. I am saying there are a lot of players in this game and none of their interests are served by keeping you reliably informed.

 

We are potentially playing with nuclear weapons here.

Use caution. That's all I got.

 

My personal opinion is that we've had like a 50 year stand off, Kim coming to the table instead of launching missiles can't be a bad thing. Maybe he's just biding his time? Could be. But until those missiles launch I won't consider it time wasted. If you are in favor of preemptive strikes I can't fault you but I do suggest at least being consistent and looking to Iran as well if that's the route you want to take.

 

I just don't like that Trump is lying to the American people about a potential enemy. I don't want war with them, but I also don't see any reason to lie about NK's position side from making himself and his party look better going into the 2020 elections. Basically, its a sleezy thing to do.

 

As far as preemptive strikes, if we could guarantee Kim/Terrorists in Iran with a precision strike, I don't see why not. Its just a matter of "Can we ensure this works", risk vs reward. I don't know all the details for either of course, but assuming it was a good ratio, I would say go for it. I hold no love for either country or their leadership. So your not going to catch me out here with hypocritical views based on the country in question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Nolder said:

So you're saying you believe NK either has or will soon have a nuclear missile with the speed, range, percsion, and payload equal to anything any other nuclear capable world power has? Including the United States and/or Russia?

 

Ok. Let's talk this through. So Kim is lying. So what?

 

1.) Not all missles are the same, what NK is playing with now are roughly akin to Atlas rockets, which were barely more than really big V2s. To an extent it doesn't matter; we move into "world targets in megadeaths" pretty quickly.

 

I think that the North has (or believes they have) the ability to hurl a missle with a potentially nuclear payload towards North America. I'm not enirely convinced they can aim it particularly well, but that's a refinement.

 

2.) He's playing Trump. This is a big deal. He's getting faux international ligitiamcy, or bringing US-relations down to his level (more likely), as other non-Korean allies aren't too keen on how the US is treating him, and the south clearly have their own reasons. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, SinisterDeath said:

When it comes to Nukes, Precision, range and Speed are almost irrelevant. Having the capability of creating nukes, makes you a Nuclear power. Having shitty missiles, just makes you all the more dangerous to everyone... Friend or Foe.

Uhh it matters a lot actually.

If they are capable of hitting say Hawaii but not mainland USA or if the payload can take out downtown L.A. But not the greater metropolitan area I think it matters.

 

50 minutes ago, SinisterDeath said:

Kim's lying to Trump. 

Everyone else knows he's lying.

Everyone knows it but Trump? Or Trump knows too?

 

50 minutes ago, SinisterDeath said:

But Trump is spinning it as he's the master deal maker, when in reality he's being pomp and pimped, getting bribed by these officials,

Really? Who bribed him? With what?

 

50 minutes ago, SinisterDeath said:

while they roll weapons in the background while he's to engorged in his extravagant dinner parties, parades, and flashy lights.

What parades? Wtf are you talking about?

 

50 minutes ago, SinisterDeath said:

And here i'm thinking...

People disqualified Johnson in 2016, because he didn't know some random countries name/or why it was important. And then I look up and see this and just shake my freaking head.

People disqualified Johnson because he's a weirdo with zero chance of winning.

 

 

32 minutes ago, Lenlo said:

 

I just don't like that Trump is lying to the American people about a potential enemy.

Do you believe the American people need to know?

 

32 minutes ago, Lenlo said:

 

I don't want war with them, but I also don't see any reason to lie about NK's position side from making himself and his party look better going into the 2020 elections. Basically, its a sleezy thing to do.

Maybe he doesn't want to worry the public and cause economic concern which wouldn't help anything?

Just spitballing.

 

32 minutes ago, Lenlo said:

As far as preemptive strikes, if we could guarantee Kim/Terrorists in Iran with a precision strike, I don't see why not.

There probably is never anywhere near a sure thing on this option and it's the kind of option you better be damn sure of before taking.

 

32 minutes ago, Lenlo said:

 

Its just a matter of "Can we ensure this works", risk vs reward. I don't know all the details for either of course, but assuming it was a good ratio, I would say go for it. I hold no love for either country or their leadership. So your not going to catch me out here with hypocritical views based on the country in question.

I wasn't trying to. I just meant that our choices should probably be consistent with regards to similar situations.

 

 

26 minutes ago, Tyzack said:

 

1.) Not all missles are the same, what NK is playing with now are roughly akin to Atlas rockets, which were barely more than really big V2s. To an extent it doesn't matter; we move into "world targets in megadeaths" pretty quickly.

 

I think that the North has (or believes they have) the ability to hurl a missle with a potentially nuclear payload towards North America. I'm not enirely convinced they can aim it particularly well, but that's a refinement.

So you think they think they can reach mainland USA?

 

26 minutes ago, Tyzack said:

2.) He's playing Trump. This is a big deal. He's getting faux international ligitiamcy, or bringing US-relations down to his level (more likely), as other non-Korean allies aren't too keen on how the US is treating him, and the south clearly have their own reasons. 

I hate to repeat myself but SO WHAT?

I think if we can trade with the Chinese and have relations with Cuba we can give North Korea some legitimacy.

Does it hurt anyone just to have talks? As long as we're talking we're not fighting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Nolder said:

Uhh it matters a lot actually.

So you think they think they can reach mainland USA?

 

I hate to repeat myself but SO WHAT?

I think if we can trade with the Chinese and have relations with Cuba we can give North Korea some legitimacy.

Does it hurt anyone just to have talks? As long as we're talking we're not fighting.

 

I am not against peace with north korea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nolder said:

Uhh it matters a lot actually.

If they are capable of hitting say Hawaii but not mainland USA or if the payload can take out downtown L.A. But not the greater metropolitan area I think it matters.

Suit Case Nukes.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

Suit Case Nukes.

There are no such things.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, CUBAREY said:

Suit Case Nukes.

There are no such things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuclear_device

https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/fs-dirty-bombs.html

 

Of course they do.

And all it would take to devastate a country, is to send a thousand random people, to a thousand random airports, with a thousand dirty bombs/miniature nukes. Don't even need to get on a plane. Just walk into the airport.

 

NK's ICBM program is just means they can launch nukes we can hopefully shoot down.

The real danger is miniaturization of the end product (nuclear bombs).

Something I know, you know, that we know, that the USA, and every other world power has been looking into for ages. 
It's one of the reasons we don't want Iran to keep going nuclear.

Edited by SinisterDeath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The threat of weaponized miniature nukes is unrealistic from players such as NK.

 

Their program has always been about regime survival. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tyzack said:

The threat of weaponized miniature nukes is unrealistic from players such as NK.

 

Their program has always been about regime survival. 

Doesn't even have to be weaponized.

With Dirty Bombs, they can cause devastation just using by products of the enrichment process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Posts

    • Yes but there is opening yourself to channel and then there is a quick unintentional use.  If you notice before Rand became a channeler, fully aware of what he was doing and willing try to embrace the power, all you get are the side effects from channeling (the taking chances etc,,) but not the filth feeling.  After book 1, when the using the power and the side effects happened near the same time, all he gets is the filth.  The difference is he knows he can channel and needs to embrace the source to channel.  Just like the women who are starting to channel never seem to notice the warmth of touching the female half until they survive the side effects and become aware what they are doing.  A wilder like Nyn, had she stayed in the Two Rivers, never would of felt the feeling of opening herself to the source since she had built up a block, so it might have to do with you have to open yourself up to the power to feel the good or bad.     In one of Rand's lives in book 2 I believe he was a member of the Queen's guards and was lucky, he thought later he understood why but he didn't care.  He was suffering from touching the male half but was basicly a wilder and it was never said he was feeling the filth.  So I think a lot has to do with someone who channels but doesn't really know it or is never trained how to do it aren't fully opening themselves up enough to feel the filth or warmth.  They are incapable of doing anything more then a quick touch of the surface.   It's possible Rand would of started to feel nausea when he accidently channeled and not probably not understand why.  But there seems to be a difference between inadvertently channeling and intentionally channeling.
    • You can make it by heating sweetened condensed milk for a long time, or substitute another caramel sauce
    • https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/20/pew-research-1-in-10-u-s-voters-in-2020-election-will-be-foreign-born/   Muh Russian influence. LOL! We are giving out country away and not enough people care. I suppose one thing follows the other though doesn't it?
×