Political Discussions for "Adults"

The Batlord · 12-02-2020, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WWWP

Did you know this is in my neck of the woods? It's where all the kids go for summer jobs. Pre-covid we had this big outdoor concert on the river every year that Grove guests got VIP access to - they'd roll in on these shuttles with a couple dozen hot af girls and just party. The Grove girls are fun. They got me drunk when I was underage and I think offered to human traffick me? My mom drove a shuttle for the Grove last summer, ran into a bunch of celebs. Conan being the most surprising! It was in her contract that she cannot make eye contact with any of the guests or speak to anyone unless spoken to. There was a strict dress code too, girls couldn't wear pants.

The barbarian?!

~~jwb~~ · 12-02-2020, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBig3

Jesus Christ. Burn it to the ground.

What makes you think it's going to be squashed? As I say (and I know you disagree) Clinton had a pretty open policy. The Obama Administration had (IMO) pretty basic requests for the Taliban to come to the table with the Afghan government and they refused.

I don't know that the Democrats are as hostile to diplomacy as they're being made out to be. If anything I think in a post-Trump world they'll be given more latitude.

Biden said flat out when asked if he'll meet with Kim he said not without getting some serious concessions first.

It's not just the Democrats. Every president has dealt with NK in the same exact manner and it's been a failing strategy for decades. I dunno why you would possibly think Joe Biden of all people would be the one to break from that mold.

Clinton just had an attempt at a deal that fell through.News flash: if you're still expecting NK to give up on it's nuclear program after all these years you have your head in the sand.

OccultHawk · 12-02-2020, 06:22 PM

Quote:

if you're still expecting NK to give up on it's nuclear program after all these years you have your head in the sand

Church

Psy-Fi · 12-03-2020, 07:47 AM

Kentucky mayor passes out in White Castle drive-thru, crashes into pole

Gutmensch · 12-03-2020, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OccultHawk

In English it’s still called Nord Stream, Adolf

Why do call me Adolf? Is there a specific reason?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwb

Clinton just had an attempt at a deal that fell through.News flash: if you're still expecting NK to give up on it's nuclear program after all these years you have your head in the sand.

What do you think about the U.S. giving up their nuclear program?

Wouldn't it be a great victory for the religious right when the U.S. become so much peaceful and follow the words of Jesus Christ?

OccultHawk · 12-03-2020, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Why do call me Adolf? Is there a specific reason?

Because you’re German.

~~jwb~~ · 12-03-2020, 11:28 AM

Ideally, sure it would be good if the whole world disarmed their nuclear capacities. We don't live in an ideal world though and no serious power is going to trust their adversaries to do so. So it is what it is.

So instead the entrenched nuclear powers try to stop nukes from proliferating in countries that don't have them. The argument given is that they're worried about a rogue state that might actually be willing to use them getting nukes. While there's some legitimacy to this concern, the reality is even without that threat, nukes shift the balance of power and so obviously the entrenched powers don't want that.

Hence why the DPRK is never going to abandon their nuclear program. They see it as essential to their security and a deterrent from Western powers to seriously intervene in the region.

Same with Iran. After we invaded Iraq over supposed WMDs, Gaddafi in Libya openly agreed to get rid of his own WMDs to avoid being the next target and there was a brief period where Iran would've been potentially open to working with us and perhaps not pursuing nukes.

Then Bush put them on the axis of evil list and they've been steadily pursuing nukes since then, and have come increasingly in our cross hairs. Meanwhile, beyond some saber rattling here and there, nobody seriously considers invading NK because of the destruction they could reign on SK and Japan. As for Libya, we helped over throw Gaddafi the first chance we got, despite his concessions.

The message other world leaders take from this is crystal clear. Proliferating nukes is a safer bet than disarmament, with regard to dissuading intervention from larger powers.

OccultHawk · 12-03-2020, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psy-Fi

Kentucky mayor passes out in White Castle drive-thru, crashes into pole

Quote:

two apple martinis

Plus two bars of xanny

OccultHawk · 12-03-2020, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwb

Ideally, sure it would be good if the whole world disarmed their nuclear capacities. We don't live in an ideal world though and no serious power is going to trust their adversaries to do so. So it is what it is.

So instead the entrenched nuclear powers try to stop nukes from proliferating in countries that don't have them. The argument given is that they're worried about a rogue state that might actually be willing to use them getting nukes. While there's some legitimacy to this concern, the reality is even without that threat, nukes shift the balance of power and so obviously the entrenched powers don't want that.

Hence why the DPRK is never going to abandon their nuclear program. They see it as essential to their security and a deterrent from Western powers to seriously intervene in the region.

Same with Iran. After we invaded Iraq over supposed WMDs, Gaddafi in Libya openly agreed to get rid of his own WMDs to avoid being the next target and there was a brief period where Iran would've been potentially open to working with us and perhaps not pursuing nukes.

Then Bush put them on the axis of evil list and they've been steadily pursuing nukes since then, and have come increasingly in our cross hairs. Meanwhile, beyond some saber rattling here and there, nobody seriously considers invading NK because of the destruction they could reign on SK and Japan. As for Libya, we helped over throw Gaddafi the first chance we got, despite his concessions.

The message other world leaders take from this is crystal clear. Proliferating nukes is a safer bet than disarmament, with regard to dissuading intervention from larger powers.

Every person in the world should get a nuclear weapon. Nobody would **** with nobody.

~~jwb~~ · 12-03-2020, 11:49 AM

Problem is individuals can be suicidal. But power structures and regimes are more likely to be self perpetuating and adhere to the logic of mutually assured destruction. Of course, it's only going to take one slip up to bring on the nuclear holocaust. So far we've been incredibly lucky.

12-03-2020, 11:28 AM	#8857 (permalink)
~~jwb~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Jul 2019 Posts: 4,403	Ideally, sure it would be good if the whole world disarmed their nuclear capacities. We don't live in an ideal world though and no serious power is going to trust their adversaries to do so. So it is what it is. So instead the entrenched nuclear powers try to stop nukes from proliferating in countries that don't have them. The argument given is that they're worried about a rogue state that might actually be willing to use them getting nukes. While there's some legitimacy to this concern, the reality is even without that threat, nukes shift the balance of power and so obviously the entrenched powers don't want that. Hence why the DPRK is never going to abandon their nuclear program. They see it as essential to their security and a deterrent from Western powers to seriously intervene in the region. Same with Iran. After we invaded Iraq over supposed WMDs, Gaddafi in Libya openly agreed to get rid of his own WMDs to avoid being the next target and there was a brief period where Iran would've been potentially open to working with us and perhaps not pursuing nukes. Then Bush put them on the axis of evil list and they've been steadily pursuing nukes since then, and have come increasingly in our cross hairs. Meanwhile, beyond some saber rattling here and there, nobody seriously considers invading NK because of the destruction they could reign on SK and Japan. As for Libya, we helped over throw Gaddafi the first chance we got, despite his concessions. The message other world leaders take from this is crystal clear. Proliferating nukes is a safer bet than disarmament, with regard to dissuading intervention from larger powers.

12-03-2020, 11:49 AM	#8860 (permalink)
~~jwb~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Jul 2019 Posts: 4,403	Problem is individuals can be suicidal. But power structures and regimes are more likely to be self perpetuating and adhere to the logic of mutually assured destruction. Of course, it's only going to take one slip up to bring on the nuclear holocaust. So far we've been incredibly lucky.