TheBig3

This is what happens when America leaves the world stage. But in the long term, this is a good thing. Once people have to deal with their own leadership doing stupid things without someone to blame it on, that's when they're willing to die in the streets for basic freedoms.

I remember Hitchens saying that while he was in Iran, the intellectual class kept saying "Why won't the American's invade" and he was happy about the sentiment at first, but he then realized that if they won't have a revolution themselves, then it's just people wanting the hard work done for them. If you're not willing to kill, they'll just take everything from you.

Economics can solve 90% of the problems we use the military for. And should.

TheBig3

Yes, Hitchens was overrated. And Nirvana was cringe. Call me when you've got the balls to take a position publically you'll be hated for.

IIRC Clinton's position on N. Korea was to be friendly with them. A position 180'd by Bush who wanted to be the "tough on crime guy." And South Korea favors a Sunshine policy. It's only favorable to be anti-peace talks when a Republican follows a Democrat.

The Batlord

Stop demonizing the right wing working class who the liberal city dwellers see as redneck trash, abandon gun control that separates them from all of the left and reinforces conspiracy theories that foments militia culture, target the pharmeutical companies that cause the opiod epidemic that destroy working class belief in a better life, and encourage local level mutual aid that makes use of the kinds of communities fostered by militia culture.

__________________

jwb

keep making fun of rednecks and hood rats, forcibly remove their guns from their cold dead hands, and create a side hustle by selling them pills and scratch offs.

Imo

TheBig3

On a message board no one comes to and where said opinion is very much supported.

The people who do this moved to the wealthy suburbs.

jwb

uh not really. There was one failed attempt at an agreement under Clinton to get them to abandon their nuclear program. That was never going to actually happen, and still isn't.

In general the neoliberal consensus is not much different from the neocon consensus in this regard: NK is only worth diplomacy if they are willing to make serious concessions with regard to their nuclear ambitions. Otherwise, that's a deal breaker. So in that regard, Biden and Obama are more hawkish than Trump was on this one issue.

TheBig3

Let's assume that's true (I don't know if it is or not), but if it was the neoliberal consensus it would be odd since most of the enemies of the United States were made allies through commerce.

The only way I can logically agree with it being a neoliberal consensus is if sanctions are a grand plot to keep perpetual war going. But if that's true, then Trump is no better, because the JCPOA was a multi-lateral agreement that would have opened up a middle class in Iran with a vested interest in international peace. Trump squashed that.

jwb

When I said neoliberal consensus I'm just referring to status quo Democrats and how they have dealt with the situation. And how Biden says he wants to deal with it.

The point of our stance with regard to NK basically derives from cold war logic. We think that by isolating and sanctioning the regime, we can undermine their nuclear ambitions. This hasn't worked and cannot work so long as China props them up.

The only way NK would be weakened enough to even consider abandoning their nuclear program is if China got on board and was willing to weaken them to the point of being on the brink of collapse. China will never do this because as much as they don't like the DPRK regime, they don't like the idea of American presence or an American ally on their border even more.

So the question is what is wrong with opening up an actual line of diplomacy. The status quo Dems say it weakens our hand because Trump "legitimatized" Kim without getting any significant concessions. Guess what? The sanctions haven't gotten those concessions either. They just ramp up the antagonism.

I don't like Trump's foreign policy in general and I'm frustrated that he squashed the Iran deal. I'm similarly frustrated that whatever meager progress he's attained in NK in terms of normalizing our relationship there will similarly be tossed out the window once he's out of power.

The Dems seem to like diplomacy with Iran but not NK. The Trump fans seem to like it with NK but not Iran. I'm saying diplomacy is necessary with both. I think that's a consistent stance.