EnglishGermanFrenchRussianItalianSpanish
Log inRegister
 
Trump
Post new topic This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 360, 361, 362 ... 451, 452, 453  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
Mightysword





Joined: 10 Mar 2004
Posts: 2132 on topic

Thank you for registering your game
PostPosted: Wed, 13. Jun 18, 01:25    Post subject: Reply with quote Print

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.


Quote:

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.


Quote:

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 ...


Quote:

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? Wink

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. Shocked

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.


Quote:

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. Wink


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. Razz

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Morkonan





Joined: 25 Sep 2011
Posts: 1602 on topic

Thank you for registering your game
PostPosted: Wed, 13. Jun 18, 02:21    Post subject: Reply with quote Print

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?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
...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?

Quote:
..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.

Quote:
... 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? Wink


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.

Quote:
...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.

Quote:
...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.


Quote:
... 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.

Quote:
... 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.")

Quote:
...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.


Quote:
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. Razz


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?

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mightysword





Joined: 10 Mar 2004
Posts: 2132 on topic

Thank you for registering your game
PostPosted: Wed, 13. Jun 18, 03:53    Post subject: Reply with quote Print

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? Confused 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.


Quote:

In what ways are we an antagonist against Cuba?


You ... are seriously asking that? Shocked

- 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? Wink

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"?

Quote:

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. Shocked

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BugMeister



MEDAL

Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 3717 on topic
Location: elsewhere..
Thank you for registering your game
PostPosted: Wed, 13. Jun 18, 12:31    Post subject: Reply with quote Print

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.. Surprised Surprised


_________________
- the whole universe is running in BETA mode - we're working on it.. beep..!! Very Happy Thumb up
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
clakclak





Joined: 13 Jul 2008
Posts: 99 on topic

Thank you for registering your game
PostPosted: Wed, 13. Jun 18, 13:46    Post subject: Reply with quote Print

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."


_________________
Laugh and the world laughs with you,
Weep, and you weep alone;
The good old earth must borrow its mirth,
But has trouble enough of its own.

- Ella Wheeler Wilcox
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
euclid
Moderator (Script&Mod)
Moderator (Script&Mod)



Joined: 15 Feb 2004
Posts: 9109 on topic
Location: Gower, South Wales
Thank you for registering your game
PostPosted: Wed, 13. Jun 18, 17:41    Post subject: Reply with quote Print

Just a coincident Wink

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
Ketraar
Moderator (Português)
Moderator (Português)

MEDALMEDAL

Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 8574 on topic
Location: Guimarães (Portugal)
Thank you for registering your game
PostPosted: Wed, 13. Jun 18, 18:32    Post subject: Reply with quote Print

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. Razz

MFG

Ketraar

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
clakclak





Joined: 13 Jul 2008
Posts: 99 on topic

Thank you for registering your game
PostPosted: Wed, 13. Jun 18, 18:49    Post subject: Reply with quote Print

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. Razz

MFG

Ketraar


Only in theory.


_________________
Laugh and the world laughs with you,
Weep, and you weep alone;
The good old earth must borrow its mirth,
But has trouble enough of its own.

- Ella Wheeler Wilcox
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Observe





Joined: 30 Dec 2005
Posts: 2578 on topic
Location: Oregon, USA
Thank you for registering your game
PostPosted: Wed, 13. Jun 18, 19:09    Post subject: Reply with quote Print

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.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Morkonan





Joined: 25 Sep 2011
Posts: 1602 on topic

Thank you for registering your game
PostPosted: Wed, 13. Jun 18, 22:09    Post subject: Reply with quote Print

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.

Quote:
You ... are seriously asking that? Shocked


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?

Quote:
- 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?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
- 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.

Quote:
.. 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?

Quote:
.. 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.

Quote:
...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.

Quote:
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. Shocked


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.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mightysword





Joined: 10 Mar 2004
Posts: 2132 on topic

Thank you for registering your game
PostPosted: Wed, 13. Jun 18, 23:51    Post subject: Reply with quote Print

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.



Quote:

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. Smile

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. Wink

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.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BugMeister



MEDAL

Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 3717 on topic
Location: elsewhere..
Thank you for registering your game
PostPosted: Thu, 14. Jun 18, 01:32    Post subject: Reply with quote Print

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..!! Very Happy Thumb up
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hank001





Joined: 22 Feb 2006
Posts: 100 on topic
Location: Carbondale, IL
Thank you for registering your game
PostPosted: Thu, 14. Jun 18, 01:51    Post subject: Reply with quote Print

@ BugMeister

Ssssshhhh or you'll foster another 1000+ diatribe
from bizarro world. Rolling Eyes

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Usenko
Moderator (English)
Moderator (English)



Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 521 on topic

Thank you for registering your game
PostPosted: Thu, 14. Jun 18, 09:44    Post subject: Reply with quote Print

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.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrbadger





Joined: 28 Oct 2005
Posts: 5655 on topic

Thank you for registering your game
PostPosted: Thu, 14. Jun 18, 10:17    Post subject: Reply with quote Print

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 360, 361, 362 ... 451, 452, 453  Next
 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
Control Panel
Login Data
The time now is Sun, 19. Aug 18, 04:25

All times are GMT + 2 Hours

[ Disclaimer / Impressum ] | [ Privacy Policy / Datenschutz ]

Board Security

Copyright © EGOSOFT 1989-2018
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Template created by Avatar & BurnIt!
Debug: page generation = 0.28676 seconds, sql queries = 29