General Saz on the Korean Situation

The place for general political discussion.

Re: General Saz on the Korean Situation

Postby spacemonkey » Mon Sep 18, 2017 11:18 am

Same shit, bigger bombs.
The hardest part of doing nothing is knowing when your done.
spacemonkey
Governor
 
Posts: 4832
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 10:54 am
Location: cyberspace
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 268 times

Re: General Saz on the Korean Situation

Postby Philly » Mon Sep 18, 2017 2:10 pm

ToddStarnes wrote:
fstarcstar wrote:Image



(1) What would Prime Minister Fstar have done in 1937?

(2) Is all negotiation and all international agreements with hostile powers appeasement, then? I'm trying to think of any instance in which U.S. military action was considered while diplomatic outreach remained ongoing and conservatives didn't screech "appeasement."

Video from : youtube.com

Watch this Dylan. But as a warning, once you see it you'll never be able to picture fstar as anyone other than this guy.

These users thanked the author Philly for the post (total 2):
exploitedSaz
User avatar
Philly
Governor
 
Posts: 9417
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 6:36 pm
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 949 times
Been thanked: 1116 times

Re: General Saz on the Korean Situation

Postby John Galt » Mon Sep 18, 2017 2:25 pm

jesus christ

my father went off on me this weekend when i made some joke when i called up to tell him he should open up his own Atlantic magazine and at least read the article by the "leftist" kurt anderson from last month. i forget exactly what i said as it's not really important but he started going on, "some libertarian you are. you're just another of the elite republican establishment, which is basically the democratic party". i don't think my father is an idiot, at all, and he knows what he is saying (generally to goad, so he was doing that there) but when i see shit like what you just posted philly... we really need a national curriculum, with money at least flowing to the state level to be evenly distributed instead of local property taxes, and need to mandate homeschools pass certain tests or they will have to go to real school -- including the amish. there is no reason why an adult with no mental disabilities should not have been able to answer that question
Americans learn only from catastrophe and not from experience. -- Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
John Galt
Technical Admin
 
Posts: 12335
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 3:22 pm
Location: Bowling Green Massacre Survivor
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 577 times
Been thanked: 1283 times
Political Leaning: Classic Liberal

Re: General Saz on the Korean Situation

Postby Saz » Mon Sep 18, 2017 5:55 pm

Philly wrote:
ToddStarnes wrote:
fstarcstar wrote:Image



(1) What would Prime Minister Fstar have done in 1937?

(2) Is all negotiation and all international agreements with hostile powers appeasement, then? I'm trying to think of any instance in which U.S. military action was considered while diplomatic outreach remained ongoing and conservatives didn't screech "appeasement."

Video from : youtube.com

Watch this Dylan. But as a warning, once you see it you'll never be able to picture fstar as anyone other than this guy.


=)) =))

f**k Gem
Pun intended for the plebes on here who don't get a joke
User avatar
Saz
Governor
 
Posts: 8448
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 9:37 am
Location: Airstrip One
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 1068 times
Been thanked: 899 times
Political Leaning: Classic Liberal

Re: General Saz on the Korean Situation

Postby fstarcstar » Tue Sep 19, 2017 11:01 pm

ToddStarnes wrote:
fstarcstar wrote:Image



(1) What would Prime Minister Fstar have done in 1937?


I'm not here for that debate nor would I care to in this thread.

(2) Is all negotiation and all international agreements with hostile powers appeasement, then?


Technically, no, but most of the positions we run into are not for mutual agreement, it's generally one sided. I agree that some form of appeasement happens if you take the definition literal and apply it to basic negotiation standards and tactics with foreign policy. With Bill Clinton, NK was getting close to having a nuclear ambition, we offered 4 billion in aid, gave them reactors, etc. All we got was a "promise" to stop. (more than just a promise of course but get the joke) Clearly went well. That's appeasement in my mind. Where we go way out of our way, give them everything they want and get nothing in return other than verbal commitments. Face it, every country we ever partnered with the UN on for weapons inspections, nuclear material, nuclear sites etc have literally failed us every time.

I'm trying to think of any instance in which U.S. military action was considered while diplomatic outreach remained ongoing and conservatives didn't screech "appeasement."


I don't tow the party line of what people say so I don't really care nor do I really follow who uses it in what context. Each foreign policy scenerio is different, I don't just scream appeasement because it's fun.
Image
User avatar
fstarcstar
Governor
 
Posts: 2400
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 4:47 pm
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 126 times
Been thanked: 144 times

Re: General Saz on the Korean Situation

Postby ToddStarnes » Wed Sep 20, 2017 9:40 am

John Galt wrote:jesus christ

my father went off on me this weekend when i made some joke when i called up to tell him he should open up his own Atlantic magazine and at least read the article by the "leftist" kurt anderson from last month. i forget exactly what i said as it's not really important but he started going on, "some libertarian you are. you're just another of the elite republican establishment, which is basically the democratic party". i don't think my father is an idiot, at all, and he knows what he is saying (generally to goad, so he was doing that there) but when i see shit like what you just posted philly... we really need a national curriculum, with money at least flowing to the state level to be evenly distributed instead of local property taxes, and need to mandate homeschools pass certain tests or they will have to go to real school -- including the amish. there is no reason why an adult with no mental disabilities should not have been able to answer that question


We dumb af bro.
ToddStarnes
Senator
 
Posts: 1916
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:11 pm
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 93 times

Re: General Saz on the Korean Situation

Postby NAB » Wed Sep 20, 2017 9:51 am

John Galt wrote:jesus christ

my father went off on me this weekend when i made some joke when i called up to tell him he should open up his own Atlantic magazine and at least read the article by the "leftist" kurt anderson from last month. i forget exactly what i said as it's not really important but he started going on, "some libertarian you are. you're just another of the elite republican establishment, which is basically the democratic party". i don't think my father is an idiot, at all, and he knows what he is saying (generally to goad, so he was doing that there) but when i see shit like what you just posted philly... we really need a national curriculum, with money at least flowing to the state level to be evenly distributed instead of local property taxes, and need to mandate homeschools pass certain tests or they will have to go to real school -- including the amish. there is no reason why an adult with no mental disabilities should not have been able to answer that question


Speaking of the Amish. Amish crime ring, or head shots from The Hobbit casting call?

Image

Thanks for the opening Galt, I've been looking for an excuse to post that pic.
Welcome to our speak board web page

These users thanked the author NAB for the post:
Winchester
User avatar
NAB
Governor
 
Posts: 7584
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 9:27 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 1080 times

Re: General Saz on the Korean Situation

Postby NAB » Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:03 am

Philly wrote:
ToddStarnes wrote:
fstarcstar wrote:Image



(1) What would Prime Minister Fstar have done in 1937?

(2) Is all negotiation and all international agreements with hostile powers appeasement, then? I'm trying to think of any instance in which U.S. military action was considered while diplomatic outreach remained ongoing and conservatives didn't screech "appeasement."

Video from : youtube.com

Watch this Dylan. But as a warning, once you see it you'll never be able to picture fstar as anyone other than this guy.


Jesus H Christ that was painful. Good recall Philly
Welcome to our speak board web page
User avatar
NAB
Governor
 
Posts: 7584
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 9:27 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 1080 times

Re: General Saz on the Korean Situation

Postby Kane » Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:22 am

NAB wrote:
Philly wrote:
ToddStarnes wrote:
fstarcstar wrote:Image



(1) What would Prime Minister Fstar have done in 1937?

(2) Is all negotiation and all international agreements with hostile powers appeasement, then? I'm trying to think of any instance in which U.S. military action was considered while diplomatic outreach remained ongoing and conservatives didn't screech "appeasement."

Video from : youtube.com

Watch this Dylan. But as a warning, once you see it you'll never be able to picture fstar as anyone other than this guy.


Jesus H Christ that was painful. Good recall Philly


My god...when was that?
Stephen Jay Gould wrote:When people learn no tools of judgment and merely follow their hopes, the seeds of political manipulation are sown.
User avatar
Kane
Governor
 
Posts: 7302
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 1:09 pm
Location: The Yay
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 299 times
Been thanked: 497 times
Political Leaning: Rockefeller Republican

Re: General Saz on the Korean Situation

Postby NAB » Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:28 am

fstarcstar wrote:
ToddStarnes wrote:
fstarcstar wrote:Image



(1) What would Prime Minister Fstar have done in 1937?


I'm not here for that debate nor would I care to in this thread.

(2) Is all negotiation and all international agreements with hostile powers appeasement, then?


Technically, no, but most of the positions we run into are not for mutual agreement, it's generally one sided. I agree that some form of appeasement happens if you take the definition literal and apply it to basic negotiation standards and tactics with foreign policy. With Bill Clinton, NK was getting close to having a nuclear ambition, we offered 4 billion in aid, gave them reactors, etc. All we got was a "promise" to stop. (more than just a promise of course but get the joke) Clearly went well. That's appeasement in my mind. Where we go way out of our way, give them everything they want and get nothing in return other than verbal commitments. Face it, every country we ever partnered with the UN on for weapons inspections, nuclear material, nuclear sites etc have literally failed us every time.

I'm trying to think of any instance in which U.S. military action was considered while diplomatic outreach remained ongoing and conservatives didn't screech "appeasement."


I don't tow the party line of what people say so I don't really care nor do I really follow who uses it in what context. Each foreign policy scenerio is different, I don't just scream appeasement because it's fun.


I'm not clear on my timeline, but weren't Clinton's relative benign actions with the DPRK part of taking a hands off approach during South Korea's Sunshine Policy? While that program isn't without it's criticisms, it was going to take a long time to have the desired effect with the North, which ended once Bush came into office. You can claim Clinton was an "appeaser", but I suspect part of his hands off approach was to try and let South Korea take the reigns in dealing with the DPRK. Opposite of the White Man's Burden, as it were.

Decent post-mortem on the policy

http://www.38north.org/2010/03/why-the- ... ade-sense/
Welcome to our speak board web page
User avatar
NAB
Governor
 
Posts: 7584
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 9:27 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 1080 times

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests