The Darker Side of the News

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6563
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby ucim » Tue Jul 31, 2018 1:41 am UTC

sardia wrote:For one thing, we don't have a great extradition treaty with Russia...
I'm not talking about specifics, I'm talking in general, as a backdrop for the specifics. This, to keep me (and us) from falling into the same knee-jerk reaction that fuels partisanship. The reason this case is different can't be acknowledged without acknowledging the general principle, which is often lost.

Another example: Horrors! Russia tried to influence our politics! We would never do that! (uh... never mind.) Point is we don't like it (The meddling) because we don't like it, not because it's antithetical to our ethics.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

Mutex
Posts: 1386
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Mutex » Tue Jul 31, 2018 8:10 am UTC

sardia wrote:For one thing, we don't have a great extradition treaty with Russia

That's the first thing that struck me, why does the US extradite anyone for Russia when they won't do it in return?

But I think the Russian constitution only bans the government from extraditing their own *citizens*, so they'll happily extradite a foreign national living in Russia? And presumably Russia is only asking for their citizens to be extradited from the US.

DavidSh
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 6:09 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby DavidSh » Tue Jul 31, 2018 2:07 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:And presumably Russia is only asking for their citizens to be extradited from the US.

Why would you presume that? The Atlantic article mentions Bill Browder, who is a British subject.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6537
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby sardia » Tue Jul 31, 2018 2:57 pm UTC

ucim wrote:]I'm not talking about specifics, I'm talking in general, as a backdrop for the specifics. This, to keep me (and us) from falling into the same knee-jerk reaction that fuels partisanship. The reason this case is different can't be acknowledged without acknowledging the general principle, which is often lost.
Another example: Horrors! Russia tried to influence our politics! We would never do that! (uh... never mind.) Point is we don't like it (The meddling) because we don't like it, not because it's antithetical to our ethics.
Jose

That's some nice WhatsAboutism right there.
First off, extradition is always tricky, and no you shouldn't just support any extradition generally. You won't always be the innocent faceless man, and then you'll regret (or conveniently forget) your stance on extradition.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition
For example, Western countries generally refuse extradition if there's a chance the subject will be tortured.
Mutex wrote:That's the first thing that struck me, why does the US extradite anyone for Russia when they won't do it in return?
But I think the Russian constitution only bans the government from extraditing their own *citizens*, so they'll happily extradite a foreign national living in Russia? And presumably Russia is only asking for their citizens to be extradited from the US.

It's a technicality. They aren't extraditing criminals in some cases. They are notifying ice that someone has overstayed their visa. And per ice protocol, they deport those criminals back to the country of origin. In the past, there's been prosecutorial discretion, but it's worse because of Trump's 0 tolerance policy.
I think the article mentioned a third alternative to extradition. Remember, these are made up crimes, so you can do whatever you want to pervert the system. It's the swatting at the nation state level.
Last edited by sardia on Tue Jul 31, 2018 6:44 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

commodorejohn
Posts: 1115
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby commodorejohn » Tue Jul 31, 2018 4:23 pm UTC

Article: "Turns out Russia is using official law enforcement channels to spread lies about dissidents so they get punished and/or handed over to the Russian government."
People: "Well, yeah, but if the dissidents were actually doing those things they're not really doing, that'd be totally legitimate!"
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3659
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Soupspoon » Tue Jul 31, 2018 10:09 pm UTC

Not that I expect it to be solved by any of the current creatures in government, but the US healthcare (and auxiliary) systems just are clearly unfit for purpose.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1900
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Sableagle » Thu Aug 02, 2018 9:40 am UTC

The leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, apologised on Wednesday for causing “concern and anxiety” by hosting a 2010 event at which another speaker was reported by a newspaper to have compared Israeli policy to Nazi policies.

The Times newspaper reported that Corbyn hosted a Holocaust Memorial Day meeting at which a Jewish survivor of Auschwitz, Hajo Meyer, who died in 2014, repeatedly made comparisons between Israeli policy and Nazism. Before his death, Meyer criticised Israel’s policies towards Palestinians.

Reuters has not been able to verify what was said at the event. The Times carried a photograph of Corbyn at the event with Meyer, and his office did not dispute his involvement.

“Views were expressed at the meeting which I do not accept or condone,” Corbyn said in a statement.

“In the past, in pursuit of justice for the Palestinian people and peace in Israel/Palestine, I have on occasion appeared on platforms with people whose views I completely reject. I apologise for the concerns and anxiety that this has caused.”
So ... he's had to apologise for being at the same event as a Jewish survivor of Auschwitz who allegedly said some things that "made comparisons between Israeli policy and Nazism." I'd better apologise for riding on a London Underground train on a line also used by Malala Yousufzai, just in case she said something bad about men treating women as chattel.

Meanwhile, from the right-wing nationalist side of the House of Common Scum:
Jailed far-right activist Tommy Robinson, whose case has attracted the sympathy of right-wing supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump, was released on bail on Wednesday after winning an appeal against a contempt of court ruling.

Robinson, the founder of the English Defence League (EDL) which in the past has staged violent demonstrations against Islam, was arrested in May for making video recordings outside a courthouse which revealed the identities of defendants while jurors were considering their verdicts in an ongoing trial.

Later that day, Robinson, 35, was jailed for 13 months.

Sources told Reuters in July that a representative of U.S. President Donald Trump raised Robinson’s case with Britain’s ambassador to the United States following lobbying by the right-wing Breitbart.com website.

Appeal Court judges on Wednesday ruled that the court process against Robinson in Leeds was flawed as the proceedings were completed too quickly, and that no details of the case against him were put to Robinson. He was sentenced within five hours of recording a Facebook Live about the trial.

The ruling against Robinson in Leeds came after he had earlier in May been handed a suspended sentence for attempting to film defendants at Canterbury Crown Court during a rape trial, actions which the judge said could have derailed the trial.

The judges on Wednesday dismissed an appeal by Robinson against the Canterbury ruling.
Yay for due process! Can't jail Nazis ...

(Is it alright to call him that? I'm not a Jewish survivor of Auschwitz and he's not a member of Yisrael Beiteinu, so maybe it is.)

... for doing what they've been specifically ordered not to do and handed a suspended sentence for trying to do, without first formally telling them what it is they did that they shouldn't have done, so he's free to carry on goose-stepping around until someone gets him a proper, formal letter telling him that "making video recordings outside a courthouse which revealed the identities of defendants while jurors were considering their verdicts in an ongoing trial" was a violation of the court order not "to film defendants at Canterbury Crown Court during a rape trial, actions which the judge said could have derailed the trial." Then we can jail him ... or not bother, because he's already been to jail for it once.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8268
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Zohar » Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:03 pm UTC

Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6537
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby sardia » Thu Aug 02, 2018 3:53 pm UTC


My history teacher used to say the ancient Babylonians were oppressed and then became the most terrible overlords themselves. But he was only a part time professor who liked to simplify things to teach freshmans.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:39 pm UTC

Sure. Happens on an individual level too. Sometimes someone gets victimized, and then goes on to victimize others.

Not a guarantee in all cases, but being a victim in one cases isn't a badge of honor that prevents one from being the victimizer in turn.

In any case, even if the particular argument was correct or not, the chap didn't say the words, he merely happened to host a party eight years ago at which Meyer expressed his opinion. I'm not sure that's something he needs to apologize for.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10238
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:43 pm UTC

Assuming we are talking about the Neo-Babylonian empire from the bible, I have to question just how awful they were (in comparison to their contemporaries), given that there were enough people to report about it.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6537
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby sardia » Sat Aug 04, 2018 1:47 am UTC

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/03/busi ... h-tax.html
I don't get how abusive this is. Can someone elaborate on it?
Mr. Woodman, then 39, had just taken his camera company public, and was suddenly worth about $3 billion. Now he was giving away much of that wealth — some $500 million worth of GoPro stock. But four years on, there is almost no trace of the Woodman Foundation, or that $500 million.

So a Donor-advised funds is when you take money and property, and donate it to a mutual fund that only acts on your charitable demands. You get the charity tax break as normal, but the money doesn't get disbursed until you say so. What's so bad about this? It's not like I donated my house, except I kept the house. The money is sitting there unusable by you. It's just really inefficient form of charity. (You get inflation losses, and you have to pay for a fund manager).

The way you can possibly game it would be a pump and dump scheme, or the Trump foundation. GoPro owner would pump his stock to $3 billion, donate it to get the tax break. (500 million donated x taxrate (approx 20%) = $100 million dollars saved. Stock collapses, and except you kept a 100 million in stored up tax credits(alternatively 500 million in deductions)
The other way would be to self deal with a charity, a la Trump paying fees with charitable donations. But that's not exactly the complaint in this article. As I understand it, nytimes dislikes the fees, and the delayed charitable giving + immediate social credit.

User avatar
Coyne
Posts: 1061
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:07 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Coyne » Sat Aug 04, 2018 7:26 am UTC

Charities are prone to abuses, which are often hidden behind a lack of transparency. DAF's are kind of like the ultimate in lack of transparency, leading to suspicions that the money really isn't really going to charity, but back into the donor's pocket, or perhaps to a PAC.

If it is, and I'm not saying it is in this case, that would sort of violate the spirit of charity wouldn't it? And, if so, how would it justify the tax break?

(Note that this is not necessarily an indictment of the spirit of charities. Anywhere there is a lot of money, there are a lot of abuses.)
In all fairness...

User avatar
Link
Posts: 1362
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 11:33 am UTC
Location: ᘝᓄᘈᖉᐣ
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Link » Sat Aug 04, 2018 9:56 am UTC


User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6537
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby sardia » Sat Aug 04, 2018 7:54 pm UTC

Look, nobody is surprised that Trump didn't get anything out of the meeting besides remains of soldiers. There's Trump stuff, and then there's his administration's policy. They don't match up all the time, even when they really really should.

In other news, what obligation does a NRA member have if you're meeting Russians?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/04/us/p ... uence.html
A. "It's a commie coldwar style spy, report them to the FBI if they do anything suspicious"?
B. "I'm a traitor to the US, Russia is A-ok with me"?
C. "We should pursue better relations with the Russia because then they might buy our guns, and not because I'm sleeping with the hot Russian spy"?
Jokes aside, this is an influence operation by the Russians, (just not sure if it's 100% government sanctioned, or merely Russian billionaire sanctioned.*), but why does that matter to anyone in the NRA? Would it be ok if a Russian diplomat came up to the NRA and offered to trade guns in exchange for support on sanctions relief? It's weird, but it makes sense for Russia to engage with the NRA. The NRA is a powerful lobbying group, and they provide connections to power centers in the GOP party.

* remember those billionaires owe their wealth to Putin, so they feel they owe him favors by killing dissidents, or conducting diplomacy for Putin, while providing a layer of deniability.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8268
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Zohar » Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:13 am UTC

sardia wrote:Look, nobody is surprised that Trump didn't get anything out of the meeting besides remains of soldiers. There's Trump stuff, and then there's his administration's policy. They don't match up all the time, even when they really really should.

Except NK definitely got some great things out of this deal, like stopping war games between the US and SK.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10238
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:50 am UTC

Eh, the wargames are mostly just a show of solidarity at this point. Most armed conflicts with North Korea will result in the following;

1) North Korea fires its obsolete-but-still-deadly artillery at the totally-not-boneheadedly-located-within-spitting-distance-of-the-border SK capitol
1a) North Korean artillery is loaded with chemical/biological agents, tens of thousands killed, hundreds of thousands injured
2) US/SK bombs the ever fuhving luck out of the artillery and army, US/SK "win" within weeks, "mission accomplished"
3) Ten million North Koreans pour over the border into SK (and China)
4) SK collapses due to a combination of war damaged infrastructure and said refugees

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6537
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby sardia » Mon Aug 06, 2018 12:30 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Eh, the wargames are mostly just a show of solidarity at this point. Most armed conflicts with North Korea will result in the following;

1) North Korea fires its obsolete-but-still-deadly artillery at the totally-not-boneheadedly-located-within-spitting-distance-of-the-border SK capitol
1a) North Korean artillery is loaded with chemical/biological agents, tens of thousands killed, hundreds of thousands injured
2) US/SK bombs the ever fuhving luck out of the artillery and army, US/SK "win" within weeks, "mission accomplished"
3) Ten million North Koreans pour over the border into SK (and China)
4) SK collapses due to a combination of war damaged infrastructure and said refugees

Now add 5. NK fires off as many nukes as it can at the US.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8268
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Zohar » Mon Aug 06, 2018 2:07 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Eh, the wargames are mostly just a show of solidarity at this point.

Agree to disagree. Wargames have a huge function in making sure forces are coordinated and well-trained.

the totally-not-boneheadedly-located-within-spitting-distance-of-the-border SK capitol

You've made this assumption before, that it's totally reasonable to just relocate 25 million people to somewhere else in Korea, and that it's a much better idea to be in, say, Busan than in Seoul. In reality that expectation is entirely bonkers and would probably ruin the South Korean economy entirely, and the distance from, let's say, Pyongyang to Busan is 500 kilometers, easily covered by 60 year old land-to-land rockets, and that SK had clearly demonstrated being able to fire to before. This massive forced relocation plan you imagine in your head won't even help with anything.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Aug 06, 2018 2:36 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Eh, the wargames are mostly just a show of solidarity at this point.

Agree to disagree. Wargames have a huge function in making sure forces are coordinated and well-trained.


Eh. Wargames in general are sometimes useful for training and testing, but are often more dog and pony show than anything else. The Korean wargames are particularly for appearances. Skipping a year's wargames probably won't affect readiness much. Can't imagine any significant outcome changes to the conflict as a result. Appearances are important, but in this particular case, since South Korea was on board with the gambit, I can't imagine it'll threaten the relationship(though Trump can of course screw that up in other ways).

I wish it'd turned out better, but ultimately, North Korea has a terrible track record of keeping their word.

Seoul's location is tactically unfortunate, but it's definitely not going to change for economic reasons. It's just an unfortunate reality of the situation.

sardia wrote:Now add 5. NK fires off as many nukes as it can at the US.


That number is probably fairly low, and the shots are fairly unreliable. Trans-pacific launches are unlikely to have much tactical or strategic effect. The 'best case' scenario for North Korea is what, they blow up a west coast city, and the US utterly pounds them into dust in return? That seems a predictable result, and unwise to aim for.

I'm more concerned that they'd use nukes on a strategic level. Fire 'em at Japan or South Korea in hopes of blunting the counterpunch. Or don't launch them at all, and use them whenever you need to withdraw under heavy attack. That's relatively simple to accomplish, and while it ultimately still probably ends badly for North Korea, it offers them more immediate tactical advantages.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8268
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Zohar » Mon Aug 06, 2018 2:42 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Eh. Wargames in general are sometimes useful for training and testing, but are often more dog and pony show than anything else.


As someone who has taken part in wargames and has friends and family still taking part in them, I will again disagree.

since South Korea was on board with the gambit, I can't imagine it'll threaten the relationship

Citation please? As I recall no one knew Trump was going to cancel the wargames until he announced it in a press conference in passing.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6563
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby ucim » Mon Aug 06, 2018 2:47 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:[The number of nukes NK could launch at us] is probably fairly low, and the shots are fairly unreliable. Trans-pacific launches are unlikely to have much tactical or strategic effect. The 'best case' scenario for North Korea is what, they blow up a west coast city, and the US utterly pounds them into dust in return?
...and then the rest of the world does - what?

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Aug 06, 2018 2:47 pm UTC

South Korea was instrumental in pushing for the deal, and Moon made a positive statement praising the two leaders for the deal*. It appears they believed it was a worthwhile attempt.

Trump's particular statements with regards to South Korea have been needlessly caustic. If a rift ends up appearing between the US and South Korea, I suspect it'll be more about how he does things than the particular actions involved. His statements(including keeping allies filled in) could be a great deal more diplomatic.

*http://time.com/5309627/president-trump-why-war-games-end/

ucim wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:[The number of nukes NK could launch at us] is probably fairly low, and the shots are fairly unreliable. Trans-pacific launches are unlikely to have much tactical or strategic effect. The 'best case' scenario for North Korea is what, they blow up a west coast city, and the US utterly pounds them into dust in return?
...and then the rest of the world does - what?

Jose


If the US gets nuked and legitimately goes on the warpath vs North korea, I don't think anyone else is going to put their survival on the line to get in the way of that. Ultimately, North Korea's just not that tactically important. They're useful to China/Russia as a stick in the eye, but both of those parties wish to avoid unrestricted nuclear war. They'd probably lodge protests, enjoy the expenditure of assets we undergo, but if it's in the wake of a nuclear first strike by North Korea, North Korea's a bit boned.

If North Korea is slightly more circumspect, they can provide a lot more backhanded support, and they'll probably lean on North Korea to take such an approach.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6563
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby ucim » Mon Aug 06, 2018 2:57 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:If the US gets nuked and legitimately goes on the warpath vs North korea, I don't think anyone else is going to put their survival on the line to get in the way of that.
You're assuming all countries are sane and in agreement with us. You think no nation that has invested in nukes would be tempted to take advantage of the situation? They have half an hour to decide, and they are not all "nice western democracies".

Yes, they know nuclear Armageddon is hell, but they built their nukes anyway. Somebody is going to want to use them.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:06 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:If the US gets nuked and legitimately goes on the warpath vs North korea, I don't think anyone else is going to put their survival on the line to get in the way of that.
You're assuming all countries are sane and in agreement with us. You think no nation that has invested in nukes would be tempted to take advantage of the situation? They have half an hour to decide, and they are not all "nice western democracies".

Yes, they know nuclear Armageddon is hell, but they built their nukes anyway. Somebody is going to want to use them.

Jose


I'm placing rather more hope in the value of deterrence. So far, that's proven to be fairly reliable. Our adversaries have historically attempted to avoid nuclear war as a practical matter. Readiness for it is reasonable, but everyone understands that the final step of escalation is undesirable.

The resulting brinksmanship rewards taking an approach that doesn't rise to that level, but that takes advantage of leveraging third parties for attrition instead. Seoul doesn't pose enough of a threat to China/Russia to escalate to nuclear war over, and they'll attempt to guide policy accordingly. Keeping the status quo in North Korea benefits them, and is comparatively much cheaper.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8268
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Zohar » Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:11 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:South Korea was instrumental in pushing for the deal, and Moon made a positive statement praising the two leaders for the deal*. It appears they believed it was a worthwhile attempt.

Your source literally says:
Trump’s announcement may have caught South Korea, a longtime U.S. ally, and the U.S. military in Korea off guard.

President Moon Jae-in did not mention Trump’s plans in his congratulatory statement on the summit, instead offering “high compliments for the courage and determination of the two leaders” at the “historic event that helped break down the last Cold War legacy.” According to The New York Times, the South Korean Defense Ministry offered only a “curt” statement saying officials were investigating what Trump’s announcement meant.

"Caught off-guard", no mention in Moon Jae-in's statements, and the SK defense ministry saying they have no fucking clue what Trump says doesn't sound like they pushed for it.

ucim wrote:Yes, they know nuclear Armageddon is hell, but they built their nukes anyway. Somebody is going to want to use them.

This doesn't seem like a likely scenario to me, I'll be honest. Why would they - just to throw away their advantage? Who's going to do that? I don't see Russia, the UK, France, or China wanting to get in the fight. India and Pakistan will want to keep their nukes against each other and not trigger an attack against themselves. Israel also has no reason to get in this fight (and definitively confirm it has nukes). Who do you think will want to just shoot them?
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:14 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:"Caught off-guard", no mention in Moon Jae-in's statements, and the SK defense ministry saying they have no fucking clue what Trump says doesn't sound like they pushed for it.


On board merely means that they appear to support it, and have been focused on the possibility for peace. Don't see a rift happening between the US and SK as a result.

It doesn't mean that Trump handled the situation well. He assuredly did not.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8268
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Zohar » Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:34 pm UTC

You wrote "SK was on board with the gambit" and then your source says they didn't know about it ahead of time, the president avoided the topic, and the defense ministry didn't understand what they're talking about. But sure.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:44 pm UTC

My read on the situation is that the president considers it an acceptable tradeoff for peace and isn't willing to rock the boat over it as a result. Therefore, the appearances are not critical.

What's your read on it?

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10238
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Aug 06, 2018 4:14 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:
the totally-not-boneheadedly-located-within-spitting-distance-of-the-border SK capitol

You've made this assumption before, that it's totally reasonable to just relocate 25 million people to somewhere else in Korea, and that it's a much better idea to be in, say, Busan than in Seoul. In reality that expectation is entirely bonkers and would probably ruin the South Korean economy entirely, and the distance from, let's say, Pyongyang to Busan is 500 kilometers, easily covered by 60 year old land-to-land rockets, and that SK had clearly demonstrated being able to fire to before. This massive forced relocation plan you imagine in your head won't even help with anything.


1) Seoul had a very small population relative to today prior to the war
2) The city itself was razed a couple times during the war
3) Nothing is out of range of long-range rockets, but Seoul is within artillery range of NK. Rockets take out specific targets, artillery raze everything to the ground
4) The SK government already has plans to move the capitol to the Gongju area for safety reasons, but is struggling to do so due to, well, politics; the first departments to relocate are the first departments to lose connections with the rest of government.

Imagine for a second we live in a world where either the American Civil War never truly ended or it ended with Confederate victory, and there were constant flare-ups between the CSA and the Union. Washington DC is right on the border with Virginia. At some point, someone in the Union is going to have to say "maybe we should relocate our capitol to Philly so our entire government isn't within cannon range of the greybacks".
Last edited by CorruptUser on Mon Aug 06, 2018 4:17 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8268
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Zohar » Mon Aug 06, 2018 4:16 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:My read on the situation is that the president considers it an acceptable tradeoff for peace and isn't willing to rock the boat over it as a result. Therefore, the appearances are not critical.

What's your read on it?


It's nice how you keep walking back on your statements. First it was "They encouraged it", now it's "they just don't want to rock the boat". The latter is true, but it's not what you initially claimed, and isn't supported by your own sources. You seem to be unable to say "Oh yeah, my bad". That's my read on it.

CorruptUser wrote:
Zohar wrote:
the totally-not-boneheadedly-located-within-spitting-distance-of-the-border SK capitol

You've made this assumption before, that it's totally reasonable to just relocate 25 million people to somewhere else in Korea, and that it's a much better idea to be in, say, Busan than in Seoul. In reality that expectation is entirely bonkers and would probably ruin the South Korean economy entirely, and the distance from, let's say, Pyongyang to Busan is 500 kilometers, easily covered by 60 year old land-to-land rockets, and that SK had clearly demonstrated being able to fire to before. This massive forced relocation plan you imagine in your head won't even help with anything.


1) Seoul had a very small population relative to today prior to the war
2) The city itself was razed a couple times during the war
3) Nothing is out of range of long-range rockets, but Seoul is within artillery range of NK. Rockets take out specific targets, artillery raze everything to the ground
4) The SK government already has plans to move the capitol to the Gongju area for safety reasons, but is struggling to do so due to, well, politics; the first departments to relocate are the first departments to lose connections with the rest of government.

1. It also had a much smaller economy and infrastructure to support such a move, I imagine. Also, population in the city itself in 1950 was over a million. The population today is about 10 million. Assuming the metro area then was 2.5 times the city proper, as it is today, that would still mean relocating 2.5 million people, a ridiculously astounding task. And the population not too long after the war, in 1955, was already 1.5 million.
2. A razed city doesn't mean the population is suddenly gone. People were back in Hiroshima and Nagasaki days after their bombings. See population in 1955.
3. Rockets armed with nuclear warheads, which is what we're talking about here, are better at razing everything to the ground than artillery.
4. Moving the capital doesn't mean relocating the people, it means moving government buildings. Of course other people will move as well, but I assure you millions will stay in Seoul and it will not be abandoned. And I doubt anyone in SK expects that to happen, either.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10238
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Aug 06, 2018 4:47 pm UTC

The capitol itself should've been relocated, but wasn't because, well, no one in 1955 seriously thought the war would still be going on in 2018. Had the capitol been relocated then, Seoul itself wouldn't have grown as much as it has. And no, I don't believe it's an easy feat to relocate a city, just don't think it should continuously expand given the location.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Aug 06, 2018 4:54 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:My read on the situation is that the president considers it an acceptable tradeoff for peace and isn't willing to rock the boat over it as a result. Therefore, the appearances are not critical.

What's your read on it?


It's nice how you keep walking back on your statements. First it was "They encouraged it", now it's "they just don't want to rock the boat". The latter is true, but it's not what you initially claimed, and isn't supported by your own sources. You seem to be unable to say "Oh yeah, my bad". That's my read on it.


The first statement was "they were on board". The only person to use the word "encouraged" is you. If you're looking to pick a fight, at least use my actual words, please.

CorruptUser wrote:The capitol itself should've been relocated, but wasn't because, well, no one in 1955 seriously thought the war would still be going on in 2018. Had the capitol been relocated then, Seoul itself wouldn't have grown as much as it has. And no, I don't believe it's an easy feat to relocate a city, just don't think it should continuously expand given the location.


It'd still be a huge city for strictly economic reasons. What you declare the capital may determine where some jobs/population live, but Seoul was always going to become huge for other reasons. Hell, it was already significant. All having moved the capital elsewhere really buys you is an easier time keeping the government intact in case of conflict, and military chains of command already take it for granted that Seoul will be attacked, so it's marginal on that front.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8268
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Zohar » Mon Aug 06, 2018 5:01 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:The first statement was "they were on board". The only person to use the word "encouraged" is you. If you're looking to pick a fight, at least use my actual words, please.

Which you reinforced by saying the pushed for the deal, but whatever.

CorruptUser wrote:The capitol itself should've been relocated, but wasn't because, well, no one in 1955 seriously thought the war would still be going on in 2018. Had the capitol been relocated then, Seoul itself wouldn't have grown as much as it has. And no, I don't believe it's an easy feat to relocate a city, just don't think it should continuously expand given the location.

Just because relocating 25 million people is an absurdly ridiculous expectation and endeavor doesn't mean relocating 2.5 million people is a reasonable thing to accomplish. I can't really think of examples of relocations on that scale (or much lower scales) that didn't end in horrifying tragedy.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6537
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby sardia » Mon Aug 06, 2018 5:09 pm UTC

New Orleans after Katrina? Puerto Rico after Maria? Probably closer to Katrina, though natural disasters don't react to attempts at evacuation.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10238
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Aug 06, 2018 5:15 pm UTC

My complaint wasn't that Seoul itself wasn't relocated, but that it was built up and that the capitol itself wan't relocated. If it turns out that Washington DC is actually on top of a huge volcano that'll blow sometime in the next 200 years, I would understand not evacuating the entire city immediately, but I wouldn't suggest that the city be expanded.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8268
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Zohar » Mon Aug 06, 2018 5:18 pm UTC

sardia wrote:New Orleans after Katrina? Puerto Rico after Maria? Probably closer to Katrina, though natural disasters don't react to attempts at evacuation.

Those are evacuations, not relocations. The expectation is the residents will come back to the city.

CorruptUser wrote:My complaint wasn't that Seoul itself wasn't relocated, but that it was built up. If it turns out that Chicago is actually on top of a huge volcano that'll blow sometime in the next 200 years, I would understand not evacuating the entire city immediately, but I wouldn't suggest that the city be expanded.

I don't know how you'd even go about doing that, but I can't imagine it being done voluntarily by the people living there - it would have to involve government regulation limiting the number of new construction projects, internal immigration, etc. To say "these people are boneheads" for living there is ridiculous and insulting.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10238
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Aug 06, 2018 5:22 pm UTC

edit:sorry, wrong thread
Last edited by CorruptUser on Mon Aug 06, 2018 5:42 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26529
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Aug 06, 2018 5:32 pm UTC

Cities expand when more people move to them. Moving the capital is an administrative thing that could be accomplished relatively easily (compared to moving the entire population), but declaring that no new people or businesses are to move to the old city is rather harder to accomplish.

And like, LA and San Francisco have both continued to expand despite earthquakes, and basically all coastal cities everywhere continue to grow despite sea level rise.

Tyndmyr wrote:The first statement was "they were on board".

Then in the second statement, Tyndmyr wrote:South Korea was instrumental in pushing for the deal

If you'd said something like, "Okay not on board, perhaps, but at least unwilling to rock the boat and risk relations with the US after the fact," then this argument wouldn't have happened. But while you didn't literally use the word "encouraged", you did literally say "pushing for", which I suspect everyone here understands to mean essentially the same thing.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10238
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Aug 06, 2018 5:49 pm UTC

The coastal city thing is actually a bone of contention for me, due to the way flood insurance is subsidized by the US government.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Kit. and 13 guests