Trump

Anything not relating to the X-Universe games (general tech talk, other games...) belongs here. Please read the rules before posting.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Post by Morkonan » Wed, 13. Jun 18, 02:21

Mightysword wrote:
Morkonan wrote: 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. :P
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
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Post by Mightysword » Wed, 13. Jun 18, 03:53

Morkonan wrote: 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? :shock:

- 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. :shock:

User avatar
BugMeister
Posts: 13647
Joined: Thu, 15. Jul 04, 04:41
x4

Post by BugMeister » Wed, 13. Jun 18, 12:31

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.. :o :o
- the whole universe is running in BETA mode - we're working on it.. beep..!! :D :thumb_up:

User avatar
clakclak
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sun, 13. Jul 08, 19:29
x3

Post by clakclak » Wed, 13. Jun 18, 13:46

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."
"The problem with gender is that it prescribes how we should be rather than recognizing how we are. Imagine how much happier we would be, how much freer to be our true individual selves, if we didn't have the weight of gender expectations." - Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie

User avatar
euclid
Moderator (Script&Mod)
Moderator (Script&Mod)
Posts: 13289
Joined: Sun, 15. Feb 04, 20:12
x4

Post by euclid » Wed, 13. Jun 18, 17:41

Just a coincident ;-)

Cheers Euclid
"In any special doctrine of nature there can be only as much proper science as there is mathematics therein.”
- Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), Metaphysical Foundations of the Science of Nature, 4:470, 1786

User avatar
Ketraar
EGOSOFT
EGOSOFT
Posts: 11741
Joined: Fri, 21. May 04, 17:15
x4

Post by Ketraar » Wed, 13. Jun 18, 18:32

clakclak wrote: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."
Communist dictator is kinda a paradox though. Just saying. :-P

MFG

Ketraar

User avatar
clakclak
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sun, 13. Jul 08, 19:29
x3

Post by clakclak » Wed, 13. Jun 18, 18:49

Ketraar wrote:
clakclak wrote: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."
Communist dictator is kinda a paradox though. Just saying. :-P

MFG

Ketraar
Only in theory.
"The problem with gender is that it prescribes how we should be rather than recognizing how we are. Imagine how much happier we would be, how much freer to be our true individual selves, if we didn't have the weight of gender expectations." - Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie

User avatar
Observe
Posts: 5079
Joined: Fri, 30. Dec 05, 17:47
xr

Post by Observe » Wed, 13. Jun 18, 19:09

clakclak wrote: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."
They sometimes appear different, but Republicans and Democrats are all of the same cloth. Trump is actually neither one.

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Post by Morkonan » Wed, 13. Jun 18, 22:09

Mightysword wrote:...I'm sorry, but when you say if a principle can't change then it's worthless,..
If it is a principle that can never be challenged, can never be "put to the test" then it is truly worthless. And, if you never evaluate your own principles, they're also worthless.

"As a matter of principle, I will never have sex without being married, first!"

Great principle, but it is worthless to a man who will live out his entire life as a castaway marooned on an island by himself...

What if you say that you will never lie? How do you know if that is a valuable principle to hold to if you never experience having to weigh its value for yourself?

You are never, ever, free of choice. Never. You are doomed to have choices. You have to examine the choices you make and the principles you use to determine what choices you will make.
You ... are seriously asking that? :shock:
You realize that, at least under Obama, restrictions were being lifted, right? With Trump, things have been pushed back. It's also due to the experiences of embassy staff in the reopened embassy. (Mysterious illnesses/sickness, possibly due to ultrasonics, hasn't been really ferreted out yet, embassy staff in at least once embassy in China have also complained, btw.)

What I am wondering is how you define "antagonist." If a nation enacts sanctions, are they an antagonist of the sanctioned nation? Or, can nations show their disagreement concerning particular policies without being antagonists?
- Being the only country with a trade embargo against them is not antagonist en....t had help (or rather, harmed) the living of normal Cuban?
Well, we must have had a strong disagreement with Cuba's policy, right? At least we didn't go to war with them over it. Or, are there no other solutions to attempt policy change in foreign country other than war if simple diplomacy fails?
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!
Who is "you?" I also assume that you are insisting that a policy that demonstrated US dissatisfaction with political change in Cuba has had no effect.
- 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.
I asked if you have considered the possibility that your own unique experience may have resulted in some personal bias regarding this issue. That is all. If it truly has not, I would be surprised. But, that doesn't invalidate anything you've stated, by itself. It was just a question posed to you, that's all.
.. Why Cuba wasn't given the same chance?
Who hands out these chances and where do countries go to get theirs? Are they entitled to them without any effort of their own, for just existing as a nation-state, and, if so, who is responsible for handing out these chances?
.. 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"?
Who's this "you" you're talking to? I am not in charge of the World. Shocking, I admit, but 'tis true...

I thought economic progress fueled by United States policy decisions didn't work out for Vietnam and that it was all due to China's influence. That is what you inferred in your previous post, the one right after the post where you put such an emphasis on Clinton's change of policy and Vietnam's skyrocketing economic success.. That success that may just end up actually changing Vietnam's internal policies.

I happen to agree that economic isolation does not, necessarily, do as good a job of changing the policies of a nation as better trade relations, but only in the case of nations where such trade is allowed to operate more freely and where the people have much less rigorous controls over their personal behavior than some dictatorial regimes impose.

However, are not nations entitled to act in what they believe are there own best interests, for their own people, and, just as well, are they not bound to the consequences of those actions?

Is it the fault of the US that Cuba is, or was, the "way it is" and that it has economic problems or a lack of prosperity? What about Yugoslavia? Is that the fault of the US, too, because of the stress put upon the USSR by its competition with the US during the Cold War? DPRK certainly must be the fault of the Us, right? Everything, not just its poverty, but its terrible dictatorial regime and the brutal way it treats its own people. Yup, definitely the fault of the US, right? The Irish Potato famine was the fault of the US, too, because of reasons and things, right? Of course, it must be said that when one stumbles across the rare instance of something good actually happening in the world somewhere, it can't have anything to do with the US, right? Right.

Yes, this is getting a bit ridiculous. The US, just like Canada, just like China, just like England, Poland, Venezuela, Iran, Fred'sCountry_57, has the right to trade with who it wishes and has the right to refuse relations with whoever it wishes. The US, just like all those other countries, must also accept the consequences of their actions, too.

Or, is it that the only nation that is allowed to suffer the consequences of its actions must always be the US? DPRK shouldn't have to have embargoes and sanctions against it just because the US doesn't like them? Vietnam should not have had to suffer the consequences of its actions in ticking off the United States? The US should never have placed grain embargoes against the USSR because, after all, they're the USSR and the US is, well... not entitled to the same rights of free association that every nation on Earth feels that it is entitled to.
...I mean sanction does little to inconvenient the offending government, and often time hurting the suffering population more.
This is well known and this is why sanctions are put in place. We feel strongly that people have a right of collective self-determination and if they don't like the consequences of their government's actions reflected in the trade policies of other governments, then they should try to change their government's policies. It's better than "war" and much less costly in lives lost.
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. :shock:
It was just something that struck me and I just don't feel like going back and digging up the quotes. It was several instances of "This always does this, except when it doesn't" sort of lines that you posted.

We're not going to get anywhere on this since whatever it is that we're arguing about has long since passed its expiration date.

I am for peaceful change and want economic prosperity for all people. However, I do acknowledge that a country has a right to signal its displeasure through peaceful means, like sanctions and trade embargoes, no matter what it is that it happens to be upset about. Countries have the right of free association. They can ally with who they wish, enact the foreign policies that they wish, but must also accept the consequences of those actions.

And, I strongly insist that the United States is not the only country on the face of the Earth that must bear the responsibilities and the consequences of the actions of every other country, including those itself is responsible for. We have the same rights as anyone else does. If our footprint is more meaningful, more impactful, on other nations, then that means were bigger and more powerful than they and simply must be a bit more judicious in our use of such things, so we certainly do not cause more harm than good.

BUT, we can still act. We can still put sanctions in place. We can still try to affect the changes that we feel are desirable, just like any other country. While openness and freedom is much more desirable, sanctions and embargoes are also effective. Each have their strengths and weaknesses.

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Post by Mightysword » Wed, 13. Jun 18, 23:51

Morkonan wrote:If it is a principle that can never be challenged, can never be "put to the test" then it is truly worthless. And, if you never evaluate your own principles, they're also worthless.
If you're so hung up on that, consider this example then:

- My mother was born into an extremely wealthy family. Not just her family, but the entire clan were wealthy. It's not often the kids were given large sum of money by relative as "pocket money for sweet". Money that my mother has no problem accepting.

- Right before she entered college though, her branch of the family went bankrupt. Long story short, the containers ship my granpa invested his fortune sunk. The family fell into hard time, but still push her - as the brightest kid to college.

- Story has it that one of the relative give her a good sum, but instead of saying "here my dear, take this money and buy yourself some candy", he said "he wanted to help paying for her education." She refused. This uncle went and complained to my grandpa that my mother was being difficult and disrespectful. When the parents asked for an explanation, her answer was: you are my parents and the only ones raising me to college, I will not have any others say they had a hand in that.

- Fast forward 15 years, she graduated, found a job, worked her way up to a CEO. Then bam, we lost the war, everything gone to shit again. I was born into this period. She has 11 brothers and sisters, all fell to hard time. Except one sister who found a large fortune. She was like a billionaire while the rest of family lived like Somalian. And she was very kind, with her fortune she helped covering a lot of aspect of the expanded family. Except ... my mom. They have extremely good relationship btw, best among the 11 in fact. This sister, or aunt to me, insisted on helping, putting money and even gold in my mother hand. But no means no, she said she appreciate the thought, but she can manage.

- By 'manage', she meant: selling her Wardrobe first. After that, selling heirloom, even mementos from my grandmothers. Then she learnt how to knit, to make underwear to sell. That's not enough, she tried cigarette trading (not the large scale, more like the ration trading like prisoner or soldiers do), she also tried smuggling run on food stock, she tried the flea market too from what I heard. Imagine, a former bank CEO, doing all that. She could have avoid it, by only accepting the help.

- Fast forward another couple decades, I was all grown up and these stories reached my ears from multiple sources. So I asked her why she put herself through all of that. Her answer was this: "so you don't grow up in-debt to anybody my son". Sound familiar? Those were the words she said as a mere teenager, she sticked with it through hard time as a woman, and when we had that conversation, a old-weathered mother was passing those words down to her son.

I don't agree with her btw, I told her she's too rigid, I told her while I would refuse the money from the uncle as a teenager, I would have accepted the help from my aunt, I would just be mindful to pay it back. I would have much prefer to accept the help, if only we can keep the mementos from my grandmother. But, agreeing or disagreeing, it doesn't matter. I look at her life and I can not deny the existence of an "ironclad belief" with absolutely zero compromising, and that is to me - the very image of a 'principal'.

- You want to talk about hardship situation that was thrust upon an individual outside their control? Well, it's not like my mother can help that container ship sinking somewhere in the pacific, or our country lost the war.
- You want to talk about "tested in face of temptation?" She could have accepted the help, and nobody would have think less of her because of that. The whole clan did, just not her.

And like I said, all of these "extraneous circumstances" - in the face of her 'principal', they did not mean a damn. And I was raised by such a woman, so you would understand my view on what is a principal seem to be very different from yours.


Who is "you?" I also assume that you are insisting that a policy that demonstrated US dissatisfaction with political change in Cuba has had no effect.
You is you - you is Morkonan - in this particular case I'm addressing you, not a general figure of the US population. Because a lot of the thing you are displaying here, I dear hope they are not common sentiment among the 330mil of American. :)

The reason I'm asking this particular question because in your previous post, I know you kinda go back and deny it, but two of your post heavily implied throughout that Vietnam was somehow benefit from US policy, that the embargo had a positive effect and creating change in Vietnam. So I ask you that this 55 years long embargo, what had it done to change the Cuba government, what it has done to improve the Cuban life. The questions are very clear and specific, if you have the answer, give it to me. Why throw back a question at me? If I know I wouldn't have asked. ;)

As for the rest of your post, do you notice a pattern? Increasingly, it's become more about the US, and less about Cuba. And here is where I guess we agree or disagree:

- Yes, the US is a sovereign country, and it can choose to trade or not to trade with any other country at its own discretion. To that end, I don't think we even need an excuse like "poor human right record" either, don't like someone face don't talk to them don't trade with them. So to that end, yes, the US can do whatever it want, or any other country for that matter.

- However, does the world exist in a vacuum voided of reason and consequence? My questions were never about the can and how, but about the why. Why do you think the UN pass a resolution every year since 1992 condemn this embargo? Because there are factual and detail reports on how it's negatively affecting the life of the average Cuban. Oh, but you said we know that already, moving on. So why we do that knowing it has bad effect on the population, on top of it has been more than sufficient time to prove, or at least doubt the effectiveness toward the goal? Oh you answered already, because we disagree with how they run their country, and as a sovereign nation it is within our right to treat the situation as we see fit. And I guess ... you do have a point.

So I guess in the end, you are right on most or all counts. But even so ... what does it say about 'us'? We live in a culture that whenever we do something, we always try to justify it to the world. Often we say we do it for the goods of others and not for our personal desire, whatever that desire is. But here, read back what most of what you wrote mork, all the justifications that you're trying to give to me: is it for the shake of justify we do what we did, or for the shake of the people we "said" we're trying to help?


*sigh*, this is why earlier following the summit, after taking a peak around the internet I hear so many righteous voices it's almost deafening. Yet, I wonder deep down, do anyone actually care about the average Korean themselves, or people are just losing themselves in their own twisted sense of self-gratification and righteousness.

User avatar
BugMeister
Posts: 13647
Joined: Thu, 15. Jul 04, 04:41
x4

Post by BugMeister » Thu, 14. Jun 18, 01:32

Mightysword wrote:- Yes, the US is a sovereign country, and it can choose to trade or not to trade with any other country at its own discretion. To that end, I don't think we even need an excuse like "poor human right record" either, don't like someone face don't talk to them don't trade with them. So to that end, yes, the US can do whatever it want, or any other country for that matter.

- which would make it a "rogue" state..
- the whole universe is running in BETA mode - we're working on it.. beep..!! :D :thumb_up:

User avatar
Hank001
Posts: 1652
Joined: Tue, 21. Feb 06, 23:50
x3ap

Post by Hank001 » Thu, 14. Jun 18, 01:51

@ BugMeister

Ssssshhhh or you'll foster another 1000+ diatribe
from bizarro world. :roll:

:idea: No.... (yawn) I'll just save trying to wade through
it until bedtime and it might fix my insolmnia.
The answer to life, the universe and everything:
MIND THE GAP

User avatar
Usenko
Posts: 7856
Joined: Wed, 4. Apr 07, 02:25
x3

Post by Usenko » Thu, 14. Jun 18, 09:44

I am staggered, actually.

For the price of an unverified promise of denuclearisation[1] KJU has managed to extract considerable concessions from a man who thinks himself a good negotiator. It would appear that he's the political equivalent of the conman who sells the deeds of bridges and major public buildings to tourists, but he's pulled off the con of the century!

So much wool in the POTUS's head it's childsplay to pull it over his eyes . . .

[1] It's even possible that critical components of the nuclear program were destroyed months ago, making this promise a moot point anyway!
Morkonan wrote:What really happened isn't as exciting. Putin flexed his left thigh during his morning ride on a flying bear, right after beating fifty Judo blackbelts, which he does upon rising every morning. (Not that Putin sleeps, it's just that he doesn't want to make others feel inadequate.)

User avatar
mrbadger
Posts: 14226
Joined: Fri, 28. Oct 05, 17:27
x3tc

Post by mrbadger » Thu, 14. Jun 18, 10:17

Trump can't pull off a genuine deal with proper politicians, so it's easier to deal with people like this, who are essentially as fake as him, only in a different context.
If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared. ... Niccolò Machiavelli

User avatar
Hank001
Posts: 1652
Joined: Tue, 21. Feb 06, 23:50
x3ap

Post by Hank001 » Thu, 14. Jun 18, 10:22

Usenko mused:
It's even possible that critical components of the nuclear program were destroyed months ago, making this promise a moot point anyway!
The DPRK tipped their hand too much with that dog and pony show destruction of a "test site." 1. They only allowed in journalists. 2. They confiscated any radiological gear.

Past the unpublished fact that the DOD had not seen activity there in years before they started "decorating" the site for the show.

As of a few minutes ago the word amoung U. S. Forces Korea is that DOD is waiting on word from the State Department on the status of this fall's exercises. :o

That finally drove home to USFK what had been to this point a vague supposition; That in Trump regime the Secretary of Defense is a minor funtionary and the Secretary of State is making decisions through Trump as Commander in Chief that the DOD is not privy to.

If fact most expect Trump to UNILATERALLY announce the canellation of the exercises with no consulting with the South Korean goverment:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/14/asia/pom ... index.html

This is bringing up the question in South Korea; Has the US became as big a "personality cult" as North Korea?

I'd say never as big, Trump wouldn't stand for the amount of power sharing the North Korean military presently enjoy there.

Since the Republicans have stopped telling the Emporer he's naked because of the coming midterm elections and sending out the warning Trump would troll decent (or worse) he's presently garnered an 80% approval rating among Republicans, but the polling data used was as slanted as hell and only went out to GOP in offices. Sure you're going to say you disapprove! RRRRiigghhttt.... :roll:

Fun times. Heil the great leader. Supreme Marshall Trump.
The answer to life, the universe and everything:
MIND THE GAP

RegisterMe
Posts: 8903
Joined: Sun, 14. Oct 07, 17:47
x4

Post by RegisterMe » Thu, 14. Jun 18, 11:18

If this all goes wrong South Korea and Japan will feel like they've been thrown under a bus. China will think it has the upper hand in the Pacific and there's a good chance that South Korea and Japan will look to get their own nuclear deterrent (just to add to the likely response of Turkey and Saudi Arabia to an Iran going nuclear).
I can't breathe.

- George Floyd, 25th May 2020

Bishop149
Posts: 7232
Joined: Fri, 9. Apr 04, 21:19
x3

Post by Bishop149 » Thu, 14. Jun 18, 11:44

clakclak wrote: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."
Trump's metrics for measuring success are pretty simple, own and control as many things as possible.

He likes dictators because by his standards they are very successful, having gained near total ownership and control over entire countries all the way down to their populace.
He would LOVE to gain that kind of control over America.

If Trump actually had any kind of cohesive vision and personal morality he'd be a hugely dangerous individual, instead whilst he seems to have a dictators mindset he thankfully lacks a dictators drive and clarity of thought.
I also think he's too lazy to put the work in.
"Shoot for the Moon. If you miss, you'll end up co-orbiting the Sun alongside Earth, living out your days alone in the void within sight of the lush, welcoming home you left behind." - XKCD

User avatar
euclid
Moderator (Script&Mod)
Moderator (Script&Mod)
Posts: 13289
Joined: Sun, 15. Feb 04, 20:12
x4

Post by euclid » Thu, 14. Jun 18, 13:13

Bishop149 wrote: Trump's metrics for measuring success are pretty simple, own and control as many things as possible. .....
Exactly my thoughts! He aims to "run the world" by means of economic power, money and clouts (favors, not to say extortion). It's not too difficult to get his "drift" by following the paper trails.

Cheers Euclid
"In any special doctrine of nature there can be only as much proper science as there is mathematics therein.”
- Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), Metaphysical Foundations of the Science of Nature, 4:470, 1786

Bishop149
Posts: 7232
Joined: Fri, 9. Apr 04, 21:19
x3

Post by Bishop149 » Thu, 14. Jun 18, 13:28

There has been much misinformation peddled regrading the policy of separating children of illegal immigrants from theirs parents, there have also been several emotive pictures widely shared that are inaccurately credited.

I have been thus far been hesitant to form an opinion on it. . . . I mean obviously it's horrific but I'm less convinced how much of the horror is specifically attributable to the Trump administration and how much is just 'Merica!!

The twitter thread below constitutes probably the more reputable and identifiable source that I've seen in regard to the conditions the kids are being held under.

https://twitter.com/jacobsoboroff/statu ... 8293553153

The picture below, a mural on the wall of a detention centre for children is straight out of some fascist dystopian nightmare . . . . I honestly don't have the words. I mean they even translated it into Spanish, the intended audience for that message is clear.

Edit: Oh dear it appears the message is a quote from "The Art of the Deal" that refers to a delayed real estate project. Now redeployed to intimated migrants. . . . . what the hell kind of world are we living in?

Image
Last edited by Bishop149 on Thu, 14. Jun 18, 15:00, edited 1 time in total.
"Shoot for the Moon. If you miss, you'll end up co-orbiting the Sun alongside Earth, living out your days alone in the void within sight of the lush, welcoming home you left behind." - XKCD

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Post by Morkonan » Thu, 14. Jun 18, 14:20

Mightysword wrote:...And like I said, all of these "extraneous circumstances" - in the face of her 'principal', they did not mean a damn. And I was raised by such a woman, so you would understand my view on what is a principal seem to be very different from yours.
You are consistently misunderstanding what my principles are and do not understand what I am saying. You obviously can not interpret my words correctly. I will put it as plainly as possible -

If you adopt a principle that will never be challenged, that you will never have to actually use, it's meaningless.

If you adopt a principle blindly, that you have never actually had to establish, for yourself, its true worth, then it is worthless.

If one does not question one's own principles as they actually come into play, as one actually is forced to stand by them, to judge whether or not they are as desirable and good and whatever other reasons one uses to justify holding to them, then those principles have no merit.

If one is not willing to to change one's principles, yes I wrote "change", in the face of reality that demonstrates to one that they are false or not worth holding any longer, then one is morally blind.

You make the mistake of thinking that these statements only apply to "good" principles that people can hold. People make mistakes. People are sometimes wrong and hold to the wrong principles. If they never dare to allow their own beliefs to be challenged, how can they possibly know whether or not that belief or principle or ethic has true value for them? And, if they blindly hold to a wrong principle or a false one, how in the world can they ever change for the better if they never allow such principles to be changed?

How can anyone ever hope to be a good person if they never question themselves about what their principles are, how those principles effect other people, and whether or not the principles they currently hold are truly, actually, "good?"

If you got a piece of paper when you were born that contained a list of principle for you to follow and you never bothered to discover, for yourself, whether or not those principles were truly good or beneficial, then you're morally ignorant.

People can be wrong. If they never, ever, think it's possible they're wrong and never question themselves and their beliefs, but simply blindly follow them, they are capable of truly horrible things. And, they're capable of doing these truly horrible things all while they believe they are completely righteous in doing them.
You is you - you is Morkonan - in this particular case I'm addressing you, not a general figure of the US population. Because a lot of the thing you are displaying here, I dear hope they are not common sentiment among the 330mil of American. :)

The reason I'm asking this particular question because in your previous post, I know you kinda go back and deny it...
You "know" I would "kinda go back and deny it?" You're saying that I would lie about a friggin' post that's sitting right here on this thread?
, but two of your post heavily implied throughout that Vietnam was somehow benefit from US policy, that the embargo had a positive effect and creating change in Vietnam.
I didn't say that.

I said that, as you stated as well, once the embargo was lifted by Clinton, Vietnam benefited.

The "positive change" was that the US saw evidence that Vietnam's policy was changing to a policy that the US agreed with.

If that happens to have a benefit for the Vietnamese people, so much the better, but the objective of the embargo was to change Vietnamese policy. That is why such things are enacted and when they are successful, it is because they are successful in helping to fulfill the desires of the nation that imposes them and not for any other reason, even if great good or even great evil comes from it.

Go back and read it for yourself. I know English is not your primary language, but when you call someone a liar, you better darn well understand the language enough to be able to justify your claim.

I have also kept referring to your own apparent amazement concerning how Vietnam's economy suddenly boomed, with many seemingly positive effects.

I have repeatedly stated that it is "known" that embargoes and sanctions have negative effects on the populations of effected countries. That is why they are imposed. The objective, however, is to force a country to change whatever policy the imposing country does not agree with.

The sanctions and embargoes were not imposed because the US desired anything more than Vietnam change its policies. The "good effects" as far as the US is concerned were evident when Clinton visited, as you pointed out, and the embargoes were lifted. The positive effects for Vietnam, after that, were not a primary concern of US policy. They were only desirable in that they could further demonstrate to Vietnam's government the positive effects they could receive by changing their policy.
So I ask you that this 55 years long embargo, what had it done to change the Cuba government, what it has done to improve the Cuban life. The questions are very clear and specific, if you have the answer, give it to me. Why throw back a question at me? If I know I wouldn't have asked. ;)
They haven't had much effect on the Cuban government and have not likely benefited the Cuban people.

The original statement and subject, however, was about how nations demonstrate their values and the original demand evidence for that by the United States was answered to in the form of sanctions and embargoes.
..But here, read back what most of what you wrote mork, all the justifications that you're trying to give to me: is it for the shake of justify we do what we did, or for the shake of the people we "said" we're trying to help?
Please post where I gave you "all the justifications that I<sic> was trying to give to you."

I told you why nations enact sanctions and embargoes. I told you that the US enacted sanctions and embargoes in order to convince a nation to change its policy when other forms of diplomacy fail. I told you that every nation uses this tool. Where did I "justify" these things where I did also not ask you, directly, if you knew of a better way? And, did I also not agree that there are other means, such as closer relationships with more open and free trade that could also be used?

Were did I "justify" any of these specific sanctions and embargoes?

*sigh*, this is why earlier following the summit, after taking a peak around the internet I hear so many righteous voices it's almost deafening. Yet, I wonder deep down, do anyone actually care about the average Korean themselves, or people are just losing themselves in their own twisted sense of self-gratification and righteousness.
I don't give a darn about whoever these other people on the internet you've been peaking around at. Maybe that's why you can't seem to understand my posts? Maybe you're actually trying to have a discussion with them instead of me?

If you have a short rebuttal or statement you wish me to address, then I will do so. Other than that exception, this particular discussion is over. You are free, of course, to have it with someone else.

Locked

Return to “Off Topic English”