You cannot erase human rights violations in the past

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by g8orbill, Jun 12, 2018.

  1. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    7,332
    Likes Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    378
    Ratings Received:
    +7,934
    Very true, but this summit added to the value proposition of nuclear development. You can get the US to treat you as an equal and get the US President to promise to protect your regime and lavish praise on it without regard for what you have done. All for the low, low price of having nukes. At this point, you can get all of that without even giving up your nuclear weapons.
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 1
  2. wgbgator

    wgbgator Very Stable Genius Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    21,013
    Likes Received:
    600
    Trophy Points:
    1,058
    Location:
    Geo-hell
    Ratings Received:
    +14,859
    That’s the thing we’re a much greater threat to Iran, NK, Cuba or any country mentioned here than they are to us. Any would be autocrat who saw what went down in Libya should be trying to get nukes if they don’t have them already.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. 92gator

    92gator GC Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    6,036
    Likes Received:
    800
    Trophy Points:
    458
    Ratings Received:
    +8,318
    No. Most conservatives took exception to Barry's everything for nothing bargain--not simply meeting with him, with a clear objective in mind.

    There was zero objective when Barry met with Raul, other than opening Cuba up.

    No 'de-nuclearization', no 'don't attack the Cayman Islands' (ref. S.Kor.)...nothing. Not even HR violations.

    Just...give away the farm, surrender all leverage, and hope that the Castro bros. reign of terror will just spontaneously become champs of HR rights, out of good faith.

    Apples and oranges...actually, more like:

    Apples and....rolled up balls of horseshit.
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. 92gator

    92gator GC Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    6,036
    Likes Received:
    800
    Trophy Points:
    458
    Ratings Received:
    +8,318
    Well yeah, pretty much--if you're abusing a handful of ppl. in Timbuktu, and pose no threat to anyone else, you're probably going to get much lower priority treatment, than when you wield nuclear capability, and demonstrate that you're capable of wiping out an entire American metropolis on a reckless hissy fit whim.

    As for 'discouraging'--of course--that's why it's better to address nuclear capability aggressively BEFORE they achieve it, not play patticake until they're hurling blank ICBM's far enough to hit our mainland.
  5. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    7,332
    Likes Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    378
    Ratings Received:
    +7,934
    Well, prepare for everybody abusing a handful of ppl. in Timbuktu to develop nuclear weapons then. Starting with Iran.

    Iran says will begin uranium enrichment at Fordow if nuclear deal...
  6. 92gator

    92gator GC Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    6,036
    Likes Received:
    800
    Trophy Points:
    458
    Ratings Received:
    +8,318
    Who's fault is it, that the 'price' for getting nukes, is 'low'?

    Who advocates sitting on our asses, and settling for fluffy 'resolutions', to prevent development of nukes, that makes it 'low price'?
  7. 92gator

    92gator GC Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    6,036
    Likes Received:
    800
    Trophy Points:
    458
    Ratings Received:
    +8,318
    Imagine that--we paid them 150 Billion dollars to do just that.

    (and btw, Iran =/= 'Timbuktu'. It's a tad larger, and not particularly remote).
  8. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    7,332
    Likes Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    378
    Ratings Received:
    +7,934
    No we didn't. We pulled out of the agreement after our government admitted that they were living up to the agreement. And now, we have taught them how to get what they want: finish the development. If you do, then we will modify our military behavior in regards to you, treat you as an equal, and lavish you with praise. Personally, I preferred when the path to getting what they wanted was not developing nuclear weapons to when it is nuclear development.

    Timbuktu is a city in North Africa not a country. I didn't realize you meant it literally. That makes your point weaker.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. 92gator

    92gator GC Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    6,036
    Likes Received:
    800
    Trophy Points:
    458
    Ratings Received:
    +8,318
    Come the hell on...

    You think NK and Iran want nukes to prevent us from attacking them?

    That's beyond naive, because the simple fact of the matter is that the only way the US will ever nuke anyone, is if they have nuclear capability first, and second, if they appear to be an imminent threat of deploy same on us or our allies.

    That is beyond common sense 101--so no way in hell is that lost on NKor, or Iran, or anyone.

    They want nukes for leverage, and to subordinate SK and annihilate Israel respectively--their only hope with the US, is that we'll stay out of their affairs, and not interfere with their nefarious intentions.
  10. 92gator

    92gator GC Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    6,036
    Likes Received:
    800
    Trophy Points:
    458
    Ratings Received:
    +8,318

    No shit, Sherlock. You're the one who conflated it with a country--I was using it figuratively, as an obscure place.
  11. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    7,332
    Likes Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    378
    Ratings Received:
    +7,934
    Of course they do. We have tens of thousands of troops on North Korea's border (for now) and Iran watched us attack their neighbor (although somewhat happily as that worked out great for them) for very flimsy reasons.

    He didn't say nuke. He said attack.

    Yes, they want to do what they want to do...with us not attacking them.
  12. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    7,332
    Likes Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    378
    Ratings Received:
    +7,934
    Actually, I didn't. And Iran is pretty obscure to us. Central Asia is quite a distance from here. And, without looking it up, what are their second and third largest cities?
  13. citygator

    citygator Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    2,393
    Likes Received:
    391
    Trophy Points:
    423
    Location:
    Charlotte
    Ratings Received:
    +5,976
    BS. If you think NK is going to get all over human rights you are bonkers. It’s the SAME thing. Same. FYI Cuba is free of nukes. You think NK will be?
  14. citygator

    citygator Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    2,393
    Likes Received:
    391
    Trophy Points:
    423
    Location:
    Charlotte
    Ratings Received:
    +5,976
  15. 92gator

    92gator GC Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    6,036
    Likes Received:
    800
    Trophy Points:
    458
    Ratings Received:
    +8,318
    Distinction without a difference--we are far more inclined to *ATTACK* anyone, if they wield a handful of nukes, than if they do not. Only Russia wields enough nuclear power for it to serve as a deterrent rather than a high priority target.
  16. 92gator

    92gator GC Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    6,036
    Likes Received:
    800
    Trophy Points:
    458
    Ratings Received:
    +8,318
    Idk, but 100 million ppl., in the heart of the middle east, and at the center of most every major issue wrt the middle east, and overtly threatening to annihilate Israel, makes it nothing 'Timbuktu' at all.
  17. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    7,332
    Likes Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    378
    Ratings Received:
    +7,934
    Really? How would you figure that? Which country with a couple of nukes have we ever attacked? And Republicans are currently acting like we are the lucky ones that DPRK agreed to speak with us.
  18. 92gator

    92gator GC Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    6,036
    Likes Received:
    800
    Trophy Points:
    458
    Ratings Received:
    +8,318
    I didn't say nor suggest that NK was going to suddenly become HR champs.

    All I suggested is that idea of denuclearizing the Kor. Pen., is a damn worthy objective, worth tabling HR issues for now.

    Cuba had no such leverage.

    What Cuba had in terms of leverage, is that it is the global poster boy for the epic fail of Barry's preferred political system.

    So Barry sought to give Cuba a gratuitous hand up, for his own political agenda--nothing at all to do with the US or her citizens (to say nothing at all of Cuba's poor pathetic unfortunate citizens).
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  19. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    7,332
    Likes Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    378
    Ratings Received:
    +7,934
    That is a pretty generous rounding. However, the fact that almost every American knows nothing about the place suggests that it is pretty remote to us. I can easily name multiple cities in Mexico and Canada here. Regardless, we have now demonstrated clearly that the best way to get concessions is not to stop nuclear development but to accelerate it.
  20. 92gator

    92gator GC Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    6,036
    Likes Received:
    800
    Trophy Points:
    458
    Ratings Received:
    +8,318
    1. Iran is not OBSCURE in the slightest;

    2. Obscurity alone isn't what I mentioned--I also mentioned 'who does NOT pose a threat to anyone else'--which Iran does (while Canada, Mexico, Australia, Argentina, India, Pakistan, on and on, do not);

    3. I used 'Timbuktu' as a metaphor of a small, obscure place--I was not actually invoking the city of Timbuktu.

    jeeeezzzzz........