Trump

[matthewfarmery]

I think Trump is been played a fool, Kim Jong-un will make this a victory for him, especially the lack of war games in the south. I don't think much will happen, but who knows? but more likely, S. Korea will not be happy about the axing of the war games with the US. I suspect there might be tensions between the US and S. Korea over this?

Trump will no doubt make this look like a huge deal, and something to be proud of, but wait a few months and see what happens, and probably with trump with egg on his face!

[Hank001]

Thus spake Observe:

So what? It's plain enough for everyone to see, that Trump is very self-centered. Nevertheless, if a 'win' for Trump, is also a win for others, the motive matters little.

Tell that to South Korea. Your not mere klicks from the DPRK and in their cross hairs. And I think this "win" will end up being the same kind of "win" the Trojan's thought they had... ooh look at the pretty horse the Greeks left us!

[BugMeister]

the view from China:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LpRPrUBk3E

[Hank001]

@ BugMeister

Saw that one when it played.
So what makes North Korea tick?
Try this one people, the view from the OTHER
side of the looking glass. Their own propaganda
and put on YouTube as it shows, in part by the
Russian government. (???)

"The happiest people on earth"
https://youtu.be/7ZMB_TxyuNM

Just so you know...

[Bishop149]

I imagine the US military is unimpressed at having to forgo exercises with South Korea.

As far as I can see that is the sole substantive thing to come out of this chat.
Not that I was expecting much, I mean it was only a couple of hours, can't really expect any substantive diplomacy to be done in such a short time. Now I suspect the real work begins, lets see if it goes anywhere. Personally I have my doubts.

Thus far the talks are little more than a PR stunt for both leaders, but no doubt good for the image of them both, but likely better for Kim his propaganda machine will absolutely lap up the US president treating him as an equal.

I'm sure that whatever traction Trump has gained from this he'll ruin within hours. An insulting tweet saying fact he hated Kim's guts, commending the NK state as "very fine people", gushing about how Kim deals with the "lying fake news media" in NK maybe the US could learn a thing or two.
Some such foot in mouth howler anyway. . . . . . He may in fact already have done so, I haven't looked at the news since this morning.

[BugMeister]

- cheers..
- Kim and Putin (-and now, Trump) all neglect the people struggling at the margins, in their own countries..

- and yet they all claim to be infallible..

- I'd include Mrs. May as well, if I thought she was of any significance,
but she's busy turning England into a (privatised) old-folks home..

[Mightysword]

In the same fashion as with gun control I presume, when is the time for grand standing?

And what does it have anything to do with this? And FYI, people did try grand standing too, it just didn't work. I won't talk further at the risk of diversing the discussion, but one day if guns disappear from American street, I will be celebrating.

What good can anything come from a society where all the progress made in a few years can be undone in weeks? The reason this is like that is exactly because we spend al the time patching stuff up for the moment, reacting to the newest thing and have this short term ideology. Implementing grand standing ideas and social constructs is what is required, large, global ideas that involve all the people, while accounting for the specific needs. Such a social model is inevitable if humans are to progress. What I would like this time around, is to come up and implement these ideas and policies without the usual need to mass murder large chunks of the population.

I won't say you are wrong in your vision, I'm just saying for the average North Korean at this moment, your grandeur idea means little more than hotair

I did not say you can not do such, I'm saying now is not the time. It took 20 years since the sanction is lifted for the Vietnamese just to start mobilizing for human right. Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba all started at the same place, so why is that only the Vietnamese standing up now? It's not because the government have a change of heart and allowing them, protesters are beating beaten, prosecuted, jail and and even killed over there whenever they stand up. It is because they are the only group that was empowered when the shackle was released. Look at a North Korean or a Cuban today and you see what a Vietnamese looked like 20-30 years ago - powerless and subdued. It's no wonder you never hear them trying to standup to the government. The Vietnamese of the past wouldn't dare to entertain the thought either.

Have you ever played an ancient building games? Like Pharaoh or Caesar? What is the first thing a settler will build? A shack. When you don't have a roof, the first priority is to shield yourself from the element, and the quickest way is to build a shack, even though you know "a shack is in noway a place for a human to live". Once you no longer have to worry about the sun or the rain hitting you, then you can build something better, a shanty. Still bad, but now not only you have something over your head, it's something not gonna be blown away by the next gale. And do you think the next step is to build even a better house? No. You started looking at other things such as food, drink, clothes ...etc... only once those basic other needs are full filled that the house will evolve into something that you see as "fitting for a human to live in". But if you try to build this house at the first step, then I'm sorry it doesn't work.

But yeah, the Korean Deal will be what will save the world....

Who said that? Trump? But we know he always gonna say that regardless of it's true or not. But not any of the people with a good mindset. That doesn't mean we don't carry hope for the process, that doesn't mean we're supporting Trump, that doesn't mean we want him to fail. You read the 'analysis' going around today and you have to wonder, do people genuinely care about North Korean and worry about the fragility of the process, or they just want to see Trump crash and burn, and it's ... hard to convince myself it's not the latter.

I'm sorry Ketraa, but statement like these, this kind of self-serving mockery is what make me doubt people true intend, are they genuillly care about the blind of the people over there, or their message is driven by some kind of twisted sense of self-gratification. This is no different then when people call the US the world police, it's not out of respect, it's only so they can mock us at the role. I guess I'm more personally vested in this affair, I see in the North Korean the image of my own people during darkest time, it's a daily hell I know not through pictures and text, but witnessing and experiencing first hand. I dont care if the devil himself is sitting at the negotiation table, like I said, barring a threat of extinction or nuclearization, if you see a chance to pull the people of North Korean out of that hell, you take it, or at least, you have to try. And if your idealism gets in the way of that, then damn it to hell, no offense intended.


About the summit itself, I won't hide my disappointment. Just like everyone else I was hoping for something more. The talk about US military presence does make me feel uneasy. But, I will take solace in the fact that IF this is something said and done that Trump gave up on, it should have been on that joint statement they signed, it wasn't on there. Again I explained it already, the kind of diplomacy I'm seeing here is the bartering type that involves people saying a lot of outrageous thing that they themselves don't mean, it's ... pretty counter-intuitive to normal diplomacy people are used to see. But it tends to work. Hope for the best, prepared for disappointment, but no judgement will be made ... for now.

[mrbadger]

I'm not really keeping up with the discussion, or following the Trump news closely any more, pro or against, it's got as boring as sports news to me now. No-one seems to want to reign this guy in, so why should I care?

But I have noticed one thing. Trump seems far more relaxed when talking to absolutist rulers than with true democratic leaders. That's something of a worrying trait in a US President.

[matthewfarmery]

I'm not really keeping up with the discussion, or following the Trump news closely any more, pro or against, it's got as boring as sports news to me now. No-one seems to want to reign this guy in, so why should I care?

But I have noticed one thing. Trump seems far more relaxed when talking to absolutist rulers than with true democratic leaders. That's something of a worrying trait in a US President.

Indeed, this is worrying, he blowing off steam to his closest allies, and giving them hell, and grief, while he pats on the back a total ruler and think its OK for him to be one, and even compliments him in such a fashion, its mind blowing.

I think he seems to want to act in the same way, So yeah, worrying.

[clakclak]

@ BugMeister

Saw that one when it played.
So what makes North Korea tick?
Try this one people, the view from the OTHER
side of the looking glass. Their own propaganda
and put on YouTube as it shows, in part by the
Russian government. (???)

"The happiest people on earth"
https://youtu.be/7ZMB_TxyuNM

Just so you know...

Well Russia does have quite a few of North Korean slaves, so one could see why they are willing to work with North Korea.

EDIT: Apparently they send a lot of them home this year.


BTW North Korean slaves have in the past also worked within the EU. There is a good chance some still do.

Late last year Poland even changed it's law to stop Korean slave labour in the country. (If anyone is wondering what they were doing in Poland, among other things reparing NATO war ships.)

[BugMeister]

- it looked more like Trump was welcoming the horrid dictator into the Nuclear Club..

- sickening..

[Morkonan]

I have an advice for you: don't bloody call it a principle then.

Can you think of any situation in which you could fail to uphold your principles, even if it was through no fault of your own?

I have always maintained that situational ethics is wrong. I do not believe in situational ethics. If there is a moral judgement to be made, it must consider both the goal and the process of achieving it.

But, that I acknowledge that someone can fail or do wrong doesn't mean that I throw all my principles out the window. As soon as a person thinks they can't do any wrong, that they will never be in danger of violating their principles, and that they can never challenge those principle, they are in moral danger.

.. if "faithfulness" something you declare as your "principle", then it should never bends, period.

That is true.

But, how often does that get challenged? How strong is one's own belief in that principle or value? Can you always be confident of holding to your own beliefs and principles in the face of any possible threat?

Would you steal a cabbage if you were starving and there was no other food? You wouldn't? OK, I would agree with you that I wouldn't, either. But, then, the body starts to break down, the brain doesn't work quite as well, the need becomes dire, death begins to loom over one's shoulder and one thinks "Well, if I take this cabbage and eat it, I will be sure to pay the farmer back for it. That won't really be bad, will it? That won't be "stealing."

Right there. Right there is where someone who desperately wants to believe in their own moral superiority has justified the true breaking of their moral code in a belief that stealing is wrong and they would never do such a thing has redefined their own definition for stealing in order to escape their own moral condemnation of their act. THAT is why you must be aware of just how often and how seriously your own moral principles are actually challenged and you have to put them in appropriate perspective. I don't mean you can't have them and can't maintain that you will always hold to them, I am saying that if you establish a false confidence in your own abilities, you run an even greater risk when the time comes for those principles to be truly challenged.

What does that mean in practice?

It means that, knowing that you hold certain moral standards, you must prevent yourself from being placed in situations where the challenge against them could be so great as to cause you to break those principles.

A man believes in ultimate fidelity to his spouse. He strongly believes that he will hold to that principle no matter the circumstances. He would die to uphold that principle!

He is out of town with his friends and they are all going out to a strip club, then they plan on going to a bar, afterward. He decides to go with them, knowing that he'll just laugh along with his friends and enjoy himself, but won't get involved in any activity that could possibly challenge his very strong beliefs. The next morning, he wakes up with a hangover in the bed of a strange woman who thanks him for a wonderful evening. OH NOES, HOW CAN THIS BE?

HE did not admit to himself that he is human and not perfect. He did not admit to himself that it could be possible for him to violate his strongest beliefs given certain situations. He placed false-confidence in his own ability to hold to those principles and that is why he broke them.

A man who understands his own human failings would not have put himself in the position for his principles to be unduly challenged. He would have, perhaps, met his friends at the bar, had one beer, and then left. Or, even better, would have stayed in his hotel room, avoiding the possibility of temptation or inebriation that could bring additional weaknesses to bear on his cherished principles.

Would the man who was supremely confident in his own moral superiority have ever considered just staying in his hotel room? No. And, that's why he failed.

Only because you didn't seem to understand what it was asking. I did not ask "what did we do", or at least that part wasn't the question, the question was "what did we do that have resulted in positive change for the people living there?".

But, that was not the context of the discussion at the time.

The context was to show evidence where the United States, and others, are upholding their principles in judgement of other nations. I showed that many nations demonstrate those principles in the imposing of sanctions.

There was no requirement that this demonstration must somehow effect the behavior of another nation, else it's not a true demonstration of those principles.

How can we be held accountable if we demonstrate, using sanctions or something similar, that we don't like a country violating human rights, and then they continue to violate those rights?

How is that somehow us NOT having demonstrated our principles by evoking sanctions? What are we then supposed to do to prove to you that we uphold human rights, launch nuclear weapons at them?

But Cuba, why? And do you seriously believe our sanction has been improving the life of all Cuban in the last 20-30 years? If not, what is the other rationality behind it? And read the rest of this post carefully before you answer that.

I'll answer the questions as I read them.

Consider this possibility - Aside from the Cuban Missile Crisis, there was also the Bay of Pigs. The US actively sought to overthrow the Castro regime. Imagine yourself sitting at the negotiating table during the Cuban Missile Crisis, armed with these facts and the knowledge that Cuba is a tiny little country very far away from the Soviet Union and it is, at that time, the first real possible expansion of Communism in this hemisphere. A hemisphere of the Earth, by the way, that the United States claims it has supreme interest in, where every action in that hemisphere comes under scrutiny by the United States.

Imagine then that, at the time, the President of the United States promises, with binding language, that the US would never seek to interfere in any way with Cuba and that the US would not seek to overthrow the Cuban government OR Communism in Cuba by insinuating itself in other ways, like Capitalistic Expansion and the "degenerate culture" it spreads... Imagine that, in order to secure a hemisphere free of any further nuclear incursions by Communist countries who ally with Russia, the US pledged to leave Cuba completely alone as long as the Castro regime and government were in place and as long as Cuba remained a communistic state. In return for this and for the removal of nuclear weapons in Turkey, Russia promised to remove nuclear weapons in Cuba and, just maybe, possibly, stated they would not seek to put nuclear weapons in any other country in this hemisphere.

There's your explanation. And, when did the US and Cuba start making the possibility of some forms of economic exchange? Once Castro was out of office. Each end of this bargain has been maintained since its inception.

..Tell me, if you have a memory of you parents pawning their wedding ring in order to buy you that prohibitive expensive toy that got smuggled over the border, what would you think after you grow up?..

Let's not get into "who had the hardest childhood" sort of thing. Or, do you think there isn't someone out there that had it worse than you?

... But the real change came in 1994 when Bill Clinton visited the country, and he finally lifted the Trade Embargo after 19 years in running. And you have no idea how fast, how furious changes happened. Vietnam went from a country that can not even produce spare part for a bicycle, to have it own motorbike assembly in just 5 years span. It becomes one of the fastest growing economy in the region.

So, our actions, in the form of an embargo, showing our disagreement with Vietnam's policies did, in fact, eventually change their behavior? And, when we formally recognized this by visiting the country, we changed our policy to reflect our agreement with their progress?

The US has long maintained that open economies benefit the people and encourage free thinking and the ideals of individual freedom which support the foundations of a democratic society. So, I am not surprised that these events occurred.

Do you think the government change? No, they're still the same assholes as they were before, but the life over there definitely change, by a lot, and for the better.

And, how long will these people who have now benefited from trade with the rest of world put up with an oppressive government in the light of all the freedoms they see others in the world enjoying who don't have such governments?

Change takes place slowly. Again, it's another mechanism that the US and other nations use to influence change in other countries and it's why, for instance, the USSR and other closely allied countries kept their markets closed against broader capitalism.

You know, I look at the current situation in Korea and Cuba and sometime I break out a sweat, what if, what if Clinton never visit, what if the government of Vietnam did something to piss the US off so that instead of lifting the embargo, it would have been tighten instead. Vietnam probably would be in the same state of Cuba and North Korean are in now, there is little reason to believe otherwise.

So you're saying things like embargos, perhaps even sanctions, are effective ways for countries to demonstrate that they do not agree with the actions of other countries?

- ...There is actually another change that started happening in Vietnam just about 5 years ago. Whether before people would accept government oppressiveness, keep their head down and avoid trouble the best they can, now they're starting having protest, they start speaking out government wrong doing. 20 years ago, if a Vietnamese wants to hold a protest, I would question if he/she has a death-wish. These days, I'll just say "good luck". Like I said the human right record is pretty bad, those stand up to protest don't tend to have a happy ending. But you know, when people are no longer worry about what to eat and what to cover their tits, when their material need is satisfied, naturally people start getting philosophy: what's the meaning of life, how to live true and free blah blah blah, that kind of crap.

You claim that half my posts are "idealistic ignorance."

But, you can't see the evidence of international policy having a positive effect, even when you were a part of it and living in the results of that policy.

Can't you see why oppressive governments fear capitalism? Can't you see the exact same mechanisms being played out in your experiences in Vietnam being played out in other countries that may be under the effects of sanctions and embargoes. And, can't you see that these things do have an effect that can result in positive change?

But... I am the one full of idealistic ignorance? You can't see the forest for all the trees and you've stood right in the middle of it for years of your life.

...And if you still can not help yourself from DOING something, then try to find a way to do it in a positive manner. Through inspiration, through positive re-enforcement, by infusing positive energy instead of the negativity crap. Breath people wind and they'll set sail on their own, don't impose yourself thinking you must help them row the boat.

I am incapable of these things, since they are ideals and I am "idealistically ignorant."

I am not sure what you're referring to, but rest assured that I am an encouraging, positive, person, especially when it comes down to the lives of other people.

There are some times, however, when even the most benevolent people one could imagine have to speak out, isn't there? Shouldn't the voices of the loving, caring, nurturing, people be heard, too?

[Observe]

When principles are overruled by instincts, those principles are not strongly rooted. Instinct tells us to be pragmatic and there is nothing wrong with that - except when pragmatism collides with principles.

I remember a story about a monk (I don't remember his name) who lived in a cave not far from a village where he would come daily on his Alms round (accepting food). One day, he fell sick and couldn't leave his cave for many days. Eventually, hunger drove him to walk to the village, but starving, he collapsed before he could get there. Finally, the villages went looking for him and found him in the middle of an orchard with ripe fruit on the ground. They asked him why he hadn't eaten anything to gain his strength. He replied, he couldn't because the food wasn't his and he had not been offered any.

Just a story, but illustrates the point. Principles remain in spite of changing circumstances. I'm not sure how any of this is relevant, since these are things each man must work out for himself, according to his abilities. Certainly, principles cannot be dictated. They can however, be offered as guidelines for successful living.

[Morkonan]

...Just a story, but illustrates the point. Principles remain in spite of changing circumstances. I'm not sure how any of this is relevant, since these are things each man must work out for himself, according to his abilities. Certainly, principles cannot be dictated. They can however, be offered as guidelines for successful living.

And, a prudent man would not let himself have run out of food so that his principles against theft would not have placed him in that predicament.

(I remember that same story, too. Can't remember exactly where it was from, though.)

Having beliefs, principles, moral and ethical standards, all those things are considered laudable by most people. We praise people who demonstrate maintaining valuable cultural standards in the face of adversity.

But, acting before such standards become so terribly challenged is usually the best course of action. But, that doesn't seem to be as often highly praised, does it?

Why did the monk become a hermit in the first place? That probably wasn't asked of the teller of that parable/story, was it?

To apply this to the purpose of the thread:

Evidence of our nation's principles must be clear in not only who we choose for leaders, where we have such a choice, but the actions that our nations take. Further, in my opinion, the methods we use must also be held to the standards we claim to hold ourselves to. Those are, after all, our guiding principles, which determine, among other things, our own laws.

We believe in self-determination. We believe that "the people" have a right to determine their own paths, their own government, their own individual goals and how they will achieve them. That doesn't mean, however, we can't do things like try to convince others that their habits are destructive or oppressive and are in direct opposition to our own principles. So, we can attempt to affect change in a number of ways, one of which are "sanctions."

Those are oppressive, sometimes, to the people living in countries that even have oppressive governments, compounding their problems. (Like in Mightsword's post.) So, why do we do them if we don't want to oppress or harm people? We do it because either the government, itself, will change or change its own policies, like in Mightsword's post, or the people, themselves, will empower themselves to change the government.

We did it. France did it. England did it. And, many other nations have had their own citizens rise up, empower themselves, and then seek change for the better. A little Revolution, now and then, can be a good thing.

We're not the boss of the world's morals or systems of government. We can get along quite well, for better or worse (IMO), with even Communistic governments. (There are no true communist govts.) But, when a government's oppression becomes so severe that we must respond in outrage, there are only so many nonviolent means at our disposal. And, often, those "nonviolent" means still end up effecting the people of that nation, like with harsh trade embargoes. At that point, we've acted in favor of allowing the people to decide for themselves if they wish to act against their own government or not. The only other option for us is an undesirable one - War. There is, after all, a limit to how much one nation can effect the policies and sovereignty of another without direct conflict.

If there was some better option, we would take it, wouldn't we? If there was a "better option" other than harsh sanctions and embargoes, and other than direct conflict, wouldn't we choose that option? A better option in DPRK, Iran, etc? Of course we would. After all, that's why the United Nations exists... to provide such options. But, it has its limits and very rarely does it go beyond some form of collective trade sanction in attempting to address what it considers the misbehavior of nations.

[Mightysword]

That is true.
But, how often does that get challenged?

If it's something defined as a 'principal', why does it matter? The rest of your address is meaningless. I already said principal is something you will be willingly to die upon. Some people can have very strong belief, that doesn't mean they have a principal.

But, that was not the context of the discussion at the time.

But that's what I asked? How can I address your response if you're telling me you're responding not per content of the question itself. That's not to say I even agree with you it's not part of the context. What I, and some others here have been trying to argue that sometime it's better to work out things in order, let's the natural process take its course instead of trample it on the first day with some distanced abstracted idea.

I'll answer the questions as I read them.

Then I recommend you thoroughly read them at the very least then. I'm not sure what most of your address was for, I already said I understand why the sanction was in placed. I made sense during the crisis, it made sense during the cold war, I even gave it a grace period of 10-15 years after the Soviet collapsed. What I am saying is: it does not make sense NOW. The Soviet is no longer around, Cuba hasn't threaten anyone as far as I know since their main confrontation with the US died down. I see you extrapolate the reason as to maintain regional security, and let's say I give you that, but ... that's 30-40 years ago. These days we are like ... the only antagonist toward them in the continent, actually scratch that, we're like the ONLY antagonist in the entire world against Cuba at this point. Kinda hard to justify we're punishing them for the shake of regional piece when pretty much everyone else is cool with them except us.


And this attitude preserving to your next answer ... which is ...

So, our actions, in the form of an embargo, showing our disagreement with Vietnam's policies did, in fact, eventually change their behavior? And, when we formally recognized this by visiting the country, we changed our policy to reflect our agreement with their progress?

Taking credit, ain't you. It appears I was correct on the ignorant part.

The change was initiated, not by Vietnam but by China. Ever heard of this guy Deng Xiaoping? He's the dude who ran China in the 80'. When it started to become clear the Soviet model doesn't work, people already started looking for change. Some does a total revert like Eastern Europe, some others like China and Vietnam do an internal change. China's second open door policy was initiated in the late 70', just a bit after the US was kicked out of Vietnam. Tell me, are you gonna claim credit for that too?

Vietnam basically followed suit in the mid/late 80. Mind you, the policy changed already draw in some limited capital even before the sanction was lifted. For example: Siemens established itself in force in the early 90' already. Problem is, for as long as the shadow of the US's embargo was in place, it deters any kind of large investment. No body care about an embargo issued by some other countries, but when uncle Sam flex his muscle, you feel the weight. The lifting of Embargo in 1995 was less of a trigger, but more like it removed the limiter so change can go into full affect. And ... what was changed was people life, their standard of living, thus in turn empowered people to fight for their own right. If you think your policy changed the government ... get a clue please, people are getting beaten up over there over a factory site, or a sewer line, or for refusing to give up the land that interfered with the government's vision of developments, Vietnam is still in no shape or form a democracy ... how is that "change" from what it was before? Whenever I see an article decrying human violation in some other places in the world I'm always like "heh, this happens all the time in Vietnam." You don't hear about it simply because as a country, Vietnam is pretty inconsequential in world politic, not because bad things not happening there on regular basic.

The changed you brought was an alignment of interest, it was not a cause and effect. But then alas, if it's already ingrained in your mind that you ARE the harbinger of change, you ARE the wing of justice ... then well, I guess it will be difficult to convince you otherwise. I'll stop trying, but at the very least, like I said don't be surprise when you see the words "ignorant, arrogant, hypocrisy" flying around. Not saying I agree, but neither it's hard to understand where those words came from.

Mock my view to what you like, simple as it is, it is still one imbued with the actual pain and experience. In my opinion, that at least has some more value over one that imbued with idealism and assumption. I doubt we will ever see eye to eye in this. You know, I have consult many people who lost their love one to cancers, saying words like "I understand their pain". Guess what, it's when one of my own love one was lost to cancer that I realized I have been lying all along, I didn't understand shit.

So you're saying things like embargos, perhaps even sanctions, are effective ways for countries to demonstrate that they do not agree with the actions of other countries?

If you want to stop "the government" of a country to do something physical, it's an effective way or rather, probably the only way barring kicking the door with an army. That's why I consider it's a necessity in place like North Korean or Iran. But if you say those measure is used because you want to improve the human right record ... then I'm sorry it's a stupid idea. You don't need me to say it, but regardless of reason, it will always be the people who first in line to suffer, and the regime the last to suffer ... if at all. Look at North Korean, does Kim, or his father, or his grand father at any one point look like their life has been inconvenience? Then you look at an North Korean citizen then ... well, you know. But, it was a necessary evil because Nuke was involved.

Human right, in a way, it's almost a cultural thing, especially when you talk about long term and large scale violation. You can not change it from the outside pressure, well you can, but I don't have much stock on its effect. Just like any culture related thing, it's the kind of battle that must be fought from within, you help it by empower the people to fight their own battle. Because when you try to fight the human right battle on other perhaps, often time you turn the very people you're trying to help into collateral. The main reason I brought up Vietnam now is to point out the contrast in the society behavior. It wasn't the government that changed, what changed was the people, and you can see what triggered that change. Focus on the people, not the government, once you show them what they miss, they'll take the fight to their government themselves. I know the last part of your post were in jest and mockery, but since you said you don't know how to do it positively ... I gonna take that admission at face value, so consider what I just said a friendly advise.


I know this is an unholy grail on this forum so apology to moderator first. But I think the best comparison I can draw here on a gaming forum is this: trying to fight human right record through economy sanction is like trying to fight piracy with DRM measure.

[Morkonan]

That is true.
But, how often does that get challenged?

If it's something defined as a 'principal', why does it matter? The rest of your address is meaningless. I already said principal is something you will be willingly to die upon. Some people can have very strong belief, that doesn't mean they have a principal.

If your principles are never challenged, then they are worthless. How do you know that they are worthy of holding to if they have never been challenged?

That doesn't mean, however, that you have to break your principles. Seeing the good that comes from others who have held to them is worthy, too.

The prudent person understands that if they value their principles, they must act to preserve them in the face of terrible challenge where, as they truly understand human nature, they will not be put at risk.

One doesn't have to avoid the necessities of life because one's principles are too weak to withstand them. Those would be useless, moot, principles to hold to. But, one does have to understand that one is not infallible and that extreme risks to one's principles should not be lightly engaged in if one truly does value those principles.

If you value your principles, then you likely do not engage in behavior where they will be constantly under challenge, right? Or, are you so confident in your own infallibility and ability to resist temptations that you blithely enter into situations where you principles are challenged, over and over again?

Yes, hold to your principles, always. But, just as importantly, recognize that you are not perfect and you will never be perfect. Because of that, protect your principles and do not unduly expose yourself to situations where temptations or risks to your closely held principles are common.

If you were against viewing pornography, for yourself, but did not impose such restrictions on others, would you work at PornHub? Probably not. Why?

But that's what I asked?

So, I am to infer that, instead of addressing the subject, you just changed it by asking a completely unrelated question? OK.

...These days we are like ... the only antagonist toward them in the continent, actually scratch that, we're like the ONLY antagonist in the entire world against Cuba at this point. Kinda hard to justify we're punishing them for the shake of regional piece when pretty much everyone else is cool with them except us.

In what ways are we an antagonist against Cuba?

..Taking credit, ain't you. It appears I was correct on the ignorant part.

Did our embargo contribute to the changes in economic policy of Vietnam and did its lifting by Clinton have a positive effect on the economy of Vietnam. You, yourself, stated that both of these things happened. Are you now saying that they didn't happen?

Your definition of "ignorant" seems to lack rigor.

... When it started to become clear the Soviet model doesn't work, people already started looking for change. Some does a total revert like Eastern Europe, some others like China and Vietnam do an internal change. China's second open door policy was initiated in the late 70', just a bit after the US was kicked out of Vietnam. Tell me, are you gonna claim credit for that too?

How did the Soviet models ineffectiveness "become clear?" What factors contributed to that?

No, I am not claiming "credit" for everything. I didn't do anything. But, you placed an extreme amount of emphasis on Clinton's lifting of the embargo and the extreme, positive change that came about immediately after that. You made a pretty big deal about that. It's strange that you, yourself, place such an emphasis on crediting the lifting of that embargo by Clinton and now claim that all that positive change should be credited to China. Don't you think US sanctions and embargos have a purpose to them? Don't you think that placing such things in place against a country can, eventually, encourage or affect positive change? It doesn't mean that they always will, but such positive change can be brought about as a result, without going to war to do it.

...If you think your policy changed the government ... get a clue please, people are getting beaten up over there over a factory site, or a sewer line, or for refusing to give up the land that interfered with the government's vision of developments, Vietnam is still in no shape or form a democracy ... how is that "change" from what it was before?

A policy that is designed to reduce the sovereignty of a foreign government is called "war."

If trade sanctions and embargoes are used to influence a government or even to influence a change in that government, that is not "war."

Both methods can be used to affect positive change in a government's policies, perhaps even in the form that a nation's government takes. One method takes longer than the other. However, the most sure method of all is for the people, themselves, to choose and only one of those two methods, war or trade policies, can make that happen.

You keep applying your experiences in Vietnam to this subject. OK, fair enough, but Vietnam is not "everything." If the subject was just about Vietnam, I would be much more attentive to your opinions. But, that Vietnam's government policies continue to be oppressive, in your opinion, that does not mean that those policies will not now start facing internal pressure from the people, themselves.

You, yourself, stated that now that the people have newfound prosperity and greater exposure to the rest of the world, they may start questioning their government's policies. (Do I have to quote your own statements back to you?) Are you now going to claim that this method of changing a government's policies, or even the government itself, is not effective? It may take time, but faced with increasing internal pressure by "The People" that government will likely be forced to change its policies or risk Revolution.

...Mock my view to what you like, simple as it is, it is still one imbued with the actual pain and experience. In my opinion, that at least has some more value over one that imbued with naive idealism and ignorant assumption. I doubt we will ever see eye to eye in this.

Have you considered that is it possible that your experience may bias your opinions?

I am not mocking your views.

... But if you say those measure is used because you want to improve the human right record

I said that these actions were an example of how nations demonstrate the things that they value and that these actions were taken in response to what were seen as human rights abuses. That was, after all, the subject at the time, or do I have to go back and quote that to you?

Would they improve the human rights record of a nation? It's possible they could. But, if a country places a sanction against another because it believes that country has done some moral or ethical wrong, it's evidnce of that sanctioning country's upholding of their principles and taking action to reinforce their principles. The country doing so is taking a stand for their principles, whether or not their action is, indeed, successful or not.

... then I'm sorry it's a stupid idea. You don't need me to say it, but regardless of reason, it will always be the people who first in line to suffer, and the regime the last to suffer ...

This is a "natural law" of governments and the governed. This is the rule that we have to acknowledge exists. You railing against it does not change the fact that it exists and you will never get rid of it.

As I asked, before, do you have a better suggestion? A suggestion that doesn't involve war? A suggestion to at least help bring about peaceful, but radical, long-lasting change in the actions of a foreign government? Please, if you do, then post it. Otherwise, the natural rhythms of collective governance and the negative effects that could be experienced by a population under foreign sanctions will go on, unabated, because that is how the world works... That is, after all, why sanctions and embargoes are put in place. (I suppose you will now claim in response, once again, that I am "naive" and "ignorant.")

...The main reason I brought up Vietnam now is to point out the contrast in the society behavior. It wasn't the government that changed, what changed was the people, and you can see what triggered that change. Focus on the people, not the goverment, once you show them what they miss, they'll take the fight to their government themselves.

It's almost like you read my post.

I know this is an unholy grail on this forum so apology to moderator first. But I think the best comparison I can draw here on a gaming forum is this: trying to fight human right record through economy sanction is like trying to fight piracy with DRM measure.

Why do you tend to first insist that something is true, then almost in the same sentence, say it is not always true? It's terribly difficult to interpret.

Sanctions do effect the people. This is known. It is a natural law of foreign policy. That it will not likely effect the pleasures of an authoritarian regime is also well known. (By most people.) That such sanctions can have egregious effects against the people or the nation's economy is also understood, that's why they are only taken when other diplomatic measures fail. That such sanctions, besides serving as evidence of a nation's stance on the matter, could possibly have effects that lead to internal policy changes of a nation, or even a complete change of government instituted by internal revolution, is also known.

Yet, you proclaim these things as being, one assumes, your own unique observations, as if you are bringing enlightenment to the ignorant. (That ignorant person being me, according to your assertions.) However, it is for these very reasons that nations place sanctions and embargoes against other nations. Do you think that the concept of doing so rose up magically from the ground one day and diplomats just starting using it for no reason? Yes, a nation can use such a thing to demonstrate its dissatisfaction, but the ultimate goal, it is hoped, is to change the policy of another nation, often because the people of that nation witness the direct effects of the misbehavior of their own government. Yes, it is possible for the people to suffer and that is one reason why drastic sanctions and embargoes are not done lightly. People already understand this fact of life of international diplomacy. That doesn't make it any better, but next alternative is open conflict, so it's much better than engaging in that, isn't it?

[Mightysword]

If you were against viewing pornography, for yourself, but did not impose such restrictions on others, would you work at PornHub? Probably not. Why?

Why would something like that be a principle? See, and I think that's a part of issue. The word "principle" is supposed to have very limited use, reserved for sacred concept. "I will not cheat", that's something can be called a principle, it's sacred, it's 'simple', that's also why it's uncompromising. The problem here is these days as soon as people feel strongly about something, they would arbitrarily bring in the word 'principle'. And then they try to over-complex it with a series of window dressing (which kinda like what you're doing now).

I'm sorry, but when you say if a principle can't change then it's worthless, mine if exact opposite, if a principle change per circumstance, than it's not a principal. You disagree? Fine, it's not something we will ever resolve. "I will not cheat", for me that's a simple statement, and if it's someone principle, then nothing else matter.

In what ways are we an antagonist against Cuba?

You ... are seriously asking that?

- Being the only country with a trade embargo against them is not antagonist enough?
- Do you know since 1992 the United Nation has - without fail - passed a resolution criticizing that embargo every single damn year? I have the 2016 document on my computer if you want to take a read.
- Do you know Cuba was accepted into WTO in 1995?

Btw, 55 years and counting, it's one of the longest embargo in history. So, Mork, questions for you: you look at how long this thing has been in place and tell me ...

- How much effect does it have to the ruling government of Cuba?
- How much it had help (or rather, harmed) the living of normal Cuban?


Taking a guess, you'll wait until change happens (because it will happen) and give yourself a pat in the back saying: see, after 60, or 70, or 100 years, our policy have finally helped Cuban reach a new era of human right! It's a vindication our policy work!

And see, I don't even have to bring up Vietnam, or it's like an isolated one time incident like you're trying to make it out to be. What's next, are you gonna claim Cuba is just another exception to the norm story like you just did when I talked about Vietnam?

I feel like I don't even need to say any more to dispute the fail vision you have in the rest of your post. Frankly, if you look at these facts and still believe in what you said ... I doubt there is anything else I can say that will convince you otherwise. So instead of quote for quote, I'll just give a short summary:

- First, you're wrong to say I'm focusing in my experience experience. Going back, you'll see it actually came last. It is not the case of one country, but 3.

- Second, I brought up 3 because I want to demonstrate the parallelism as well as contracts between them. All started at the same point, communist rule by dictatorial assholes. Today, they are still ruled by the same government, same dictatorial arsholes (speaking figurely). But their fate diversed. North Korean sealed its fate early because it took a liking to nuke. Vietnam was given a chance, took it and flourish. Why Cuba wasn't given the same chance?

- Third, the main reason I brought Vietnam into the equation is to serve as an example is because: I'm aware of that 1992 ... whatever it was passed by congress to keep the Cuban embargo in place until "human right has improved". Ever thought you placed yourself into a catch 22 loops? How about give them a taste of prosperity first, and see if it improves ... kinda like how it worked for Vietnam? At the very least, even if you don't believe it, you would think after 55 years and it's obviously not helping, you would think it's a good time to try for something new. Aren't you the one advocating for "principal flexibility"?

Why do you tend to first insist that something is true, then almost in the same sentence, say it is not always true? It's terribly difficult to interpret.

No idea man, since I'm not sure what you're talking about here, what part of it relates to, I know for sure it can't be relate to that sentence you quote. It's simple, at least to me (again apology to the mods): DRM does little to prevent piracy, and it usually get in the way of legit customers more. In parallel, I mean sanction does little to inconvenient the offending government, and often time hurting the suffering population more. Is this the case you're trying way to hard to make what I say more than it is, or is it the case of not trying hard enough to understand it? Because this level of misconception is abnormal.

[BugMeister]

this from March 2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0KByjfhBOU

depends on your point of view:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OSNxUb_VN8

- those NK missiles can also reach Moscow and Beijing..
- and, hey - let's not forget - he can SELL THEM to whoever he wants..

- suddenly the horribly cruel dictator Kim becomes a very important person..
- Emperor Kim now holds all the cards:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsV-17_JGbU

- the US neo-con bullies need to tread very carefully..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNvcWFXwpMQ

PS - the idiot Trump has already heaped praised on the murderous dictator Duterte
PPS - the idiot Trump even talked real-estate possibilities in the region..

- strange days, indeed..

[clakclak]

Honestly I didn't assume I would ever see the day a republican US president says about a communist dictator that: "he loves his people."

[euclid]

Just a coincident

Cheers Euclid