Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
x6 Filibustering is basically a senator using their unlimited speaking time when debating a bill to stall it. Cloture is basically the rest of the camera telling that senator to shut up and let them move on with other issues.
Well, that's the way they were designed to be, nowadays you don't even need to talk to filibuster, and there's some complexities like that.
edited 4th Apr '17 6:35:28 PM by IFwanderer
1 2 We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be. -KV![]()
Japan might be OK because the missiles that can reach it are kinda crap and the home islands are packed with ABM batteries like the THAAD and Patriot PAC 3.
South Korea, specially Seoul is within range of the tube and cannon artillery corps of North Korea, to South Korea is in for some serious hurt, which probably will hurt more with the influx of malnourished North Koreans in the post conflict.
CHYNA won't be happy at all, but for all that is worth they are sick of North Korea and they know very well that intervening to defend North Korea is a bad move.
edited 4th Apr '17 6:41:08 PM by AngelusNox
Inter arma enim silent leges
Don't forget Russia is also right next to North Korea and Japan and will most likely get hurt by it too. Surprised Putin isn't screaming his head off at Trump and/or Kim for this, since I don't think he would like Vladivostok and Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk getting irradiated/reduced to smoldering rubble and/or flooded with North Korean and Japanese refugees...
edited 4th Apr '17 7:01:30 PM by Bat178
Well speaking about North Korea, here's the second part:
How Trump's threat on North Korea could backfire:
1994, Clinton made—established what was called the Framework Agreement with North Korea. North Korea would terminate its efforts to develop nuclear weapons. The U.S. would reduce hostile acts. It more or less worked, and neither side lived up to it totally, but, by 2000, North Korea had not proceeded with its nuclear weapons programs. George W. Bush came in and immediately launched an assault on North Korea—you know, "axis of evil," sanctions and so on. North Korea turned to producing nuclear weapons. In 2005, there was an agreement between North Korea and the United States, a pretty sensible agreement. North Korea agreed to terminate its development of nuclear weapons. In return, it called for a nonaggression pact. So, stop making hostile threats, relief from harsh sanctions, and provision of a system to provide North Korea with low-enriched uranium for medical and other purposes—that was the proposal. George Bush instantly tore it to shreds. Within days, the U.S. was imposing—trying to disrupt North Korean financial transactions with other countries through Macau and elsewhere. North Korea backed off, started building nuclear weapons again. I mean, maybe you can say it’s the worst regime in history, whatever you like, but they have been following a pretty rational tit-for-tat policy.
And why are they developing nuclear weapons altogether? I mean, the economy is in bad shape. They could certainly use the resources. Everyone understands that it’s a deterrent. And they have a proposal, actually. There’s a proposal on the table. China and North Korea proposed that North Korea should terminate its further development of nuclear weapons. In return, the United States should stop carrying out threatening military maneuvers with South Korea right on its border. Not an unreasonable proposal. It’s simply dismissed. Actually, Obama dismissed it, too. There are possible steps that could be taken to alleviate which could be an extremely serious crisis. I mean, if the U.S. did decide to use force against North Korea, one immediate reaction, according to the military sources available to us, is that Seoul, the city of Seoul, would simply be wiped out by mass North Korean artillery aimed at it. And who knows where we’d go from there? But the opportunity to produce—to move towards a negotiated diplomatic settlement does not seem outlandish. I mean, this Chinese-North Korean proposal is certainly worth serious consideration, I would think.
And it’s worth bearing in mind that North Korea has some memories. They were practically destroyed by some of the most intensive bombing in history. The bombing—you should—it’s worth reading. Maybe you should read, people, the official Air Force history of the bombing of North Korea. It’s shattering. I mean, they had flattened the country. There were no targets left. So, therefore, they decided, well, we’ll attack the dams—which is a war crime, of course. And the description of the attack on the dams is—without the exact wording, I hate to paraphrase it. You should really read the—they were simply exalting, in the official histories, Air Force Quarterly and others, about the—how magnificent it will be to see this massive flood of water coursing through North Korea, wiping out crops. For Asians, the rice crops is their life. This will destroy them. It will be magnificent. The North Koreans lived through that. And having nuclear-capable B-52s flying on their border is not a joke.
And on Iran.
Why Does U.S. Consider Iran the Greatest Threat to Peace, When Rest of World Agrees It's the U.S.?
Actually, we have—there’s a few interesting comments that should be made about this. One is, there also is something called world opinion. What does the world think is the greatest threat to world peace? Well, we know that, from U.S.-run polls, Gallup polls: United States. Nobody even close, far ahead of any other threat. Pakistan, second, much lower. Iran, hardly mentioned.
Why is Iran regarded here as the greatest threat to world peace?Well, we have an authoritative answer to that from the intelligence community, which provides regular assessments to Congress on the global strategic situation. And a couple of years ago, their report—of course, they always discuss Iran. And the reports are pretty consistent. They say Iran has very low military spending, even by the standards of the region, much lower than Saudi Arabia, Israel, others. Its strategy is defensive. They want to deter attacks long enough for diplomacy to be entertained. The conclusion, intelligence conclusion—this is a couple years ago—is: If they are developing nuclear weapons, which we don’t know, but if they are, it would be part of their deterrent strategy. Now, why is the United States and Israel even more so concerned about a deterrent? Who’s concerned about a deterrent? Those who want to use force. Those who want to be free to use force are deeply concerned about a potential deterrent. So, yes, Iran is the greatest threat to world peace, might deter our use of force.
Anything to disagree with here?
@MadSkillz
I find myself agreeing with most of what Chomsky says. My only disagreement with him here would be that I think he reads too deeply into the way Trump dominates the headlines—Chomsky seems to think it's a ploy to disorient us, and make it hard to focus on resisting his agenda—but I'd just chalk it up to Trump's narcissism and short attention span.
I'm particularly intrigued by what he says about North Korea and Iran. Our leaders love to tell us that these countries are dangerous because they try to develop nuclear weapons—which may be true—but they never mention why they desire nuclear weapons in the first place. And while it may be reasonable to claim that while these countries are too unstable to be trusted with nuclear weapons, it is left as an unspoken assumption that countries like the US can be trusted with such weapons.
There's a difference between defending brutal dictators and criticizing people who want to attack them.
edited 4th Apr '17 7:06:08 PM by henry42
One does not shake the box containing the sticky notes of doom!...since when did Chomsky have anything resembling foreign policy expertise?
Actually, when on earth did apologism for dictators willing to deploy nerve agents on hospitals become acceptable anyway?
All I've ever seen from you when it comes to foreign policy discourse is "BUT DRONES". And now you're defending Juche? Maybe you sound smart when everyone else in the room is inebriated, but not here and not now.
Andrew Bowen, a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is trying really hard to have everything anti-Trump he ever posted scrubbed from the Internet
. No points for correctly guessing what job he's applying for. And so continues the storied tradition of people affiliated with the American Enterprise Institute being morally bankrupt.
edited 4th Apr '17 7:13:00 PM by Krieger22
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiotYes on North Korea.
Chomsky is again, forgetting that the North Korean leadership isn't rational, the country isn't all that stable and the generations that experienced the Korean War are pretty much dead already and the leadership that did was sitting safe and sound in China while those who didn't experience it, thanks to propaganda and information control believe they won that war and that North Korea is on equal terms with the rest of the world (how much they buy this bullshit is up to debate).
North Korea has been pressured both by the US and China to drop their Nuclear Program and his statements that before Bush the North Koreans halted their weapons program is dubious as hell.
As the tests shifted for grey areas such as satellite and rocket tests but in practice they were the ground works for ICB Ms and nuclear capable missiles, which pretty much means from 1998 to 2001, North Korea simply engaged into Loophole Abuse to avoid sanctions which in practice didn't halt their nuclear weaponry program. Something that was really questioned when they started with those civilian tests with missiles for peaceful purposes.
North Korea doesn't just use their nuclear capabilities as deterrence, they also use it for internal and external propaganda purposes, basically turning their nuclear program into a matter of national pride and an useful tool to convince the population that North Korea is a super power.
Another use for its nuclear capability as a bargaining chip
specially when they, more than once, traded halting even if temporarily their nuclear program for food, money and fuel. So keeping their nuclear program running has been their interests, stopping it or giving up on it altogether means they won't be able to use it as a negotiation tool whenever they need something.
Also those financial transactions he referred to were related to their missile works, specially the parts where they used financial proxies to pay and hire Pakistani rocket and nuclear scientists to work for them, using the financial works to raise money to sustain the party activities abroad and using the same financial works to pay smugglers to send them weaponry through the black market.
Chomsky also forgets that most of the US maneuverings in the North Korean border were in response to North Korea actions, such as sending special forces to kidnap/kill Japanese and South Korean politicians, shelling islands or border regions, torpedoing South Korean vessels, attempting to kill or extract expats and a lot more.
North Korea's internal stability is also becoming unpredictable, specially now since Fat Boy Kim is purging his relatives and other parts of the North Korean top brass and all the reports on the Fat Boy Kim have him as being paranoid and prone to outbursts, he wants to be powerful and not perceived as weak
, does this remind you of someone? Which might make him more prone to make very stupid decisions.
Chomsky never did, his analysis of Middle Eastern affairs varied between wrong and completely out of touch, he wrote articles that essentially said that if the US kept its hands off the Syrian conflict everything would be over, while ignoring that isn't just the US sending arms and ignoring the Russian and Iranian support for Assad and how Assad can't control half of the country alone. He also stated that Western powers shouldn't have intervened in Libya with a no fly zone and not bombed Gaddafi's military power even though leaving him in power would result in the civil war lasting much longer.
edited 4th Apr '17 7:17:10 PM by AngelusNox
Inter arma enim silent leges![]()
No, I'm not "defending Juche" (although I have seen people who really are that stupid). I just think it's useful to understand why unstable dictatorships like North Korea want nuclear weapons in the first place—as horrible as they may be, they don't just do it For the Evulz.
OK, you make some valid points. Maybe Chomsky doesn't get the full picture.
edited 4th Apr '17 7:19:28 PM by henry42
One does not shake the box containing the sticky notes of doom!
They thus make the logical leap that "since all of these wars occurred after Iraq was invaded, then clearly everything was better for the world before." "Before" specifically meaning the time when the Middle East was ruled by a colorful assortment of dictatorships that at least ensured "stability" in spite of quietly causing much suffering to their own subjects.
It's basically the wishful myth of The Trains Run on Time all over again.
edited 4th Apr '17 7:23:33 PM by FluffyMcChicken
I think we can all agree that Dubya absolutely botched the North Korea file, but other players (including the Kims) are equally to blame.
Iran is more complex, but their belligerence towards their neighbors makes Tehran really easy for the US to demonize. And because they could hypothetically strike Europe with some of the weapons they might get access to....Europe gets on board. And combined with everyone West of them hating their guts.....Iran got a bad hand but they haven't done much to fix things (until the nuclear deal, and if that falls apart its all on Trump).
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.![]()
Chomsky is unsurprisingly denying or omitting the split between the Iranian government proper, the clerics, and the military industrial complex IRGC.
All of which have vastly different priorities, as reflected by the differences between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's administration and the current one. The IRGC had much more influence then.
edited 4th Apr '17 7:39:25 PM by Krieger22
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiotNorth Korea is the last genuinely Stalinist dictatorship in the world, with all that entails, fused with the worst traits of a hereditary monarchy. Kim Il-Sung was, Kim Jong-Il was madder, and from the looks of things, Kim Jong-Un may be the maddest of all.
The regime has near total control over the entirety of life in the country, and that's not something that most dictatorships can claim. In the words of one book on the subject, "North Korea is very much a prison and an inmate rebellion would be costly". Of course the truly frightening reality is that such an internal rebellion is unlikely to ever happen, because not only does the Army buy into the Party line, but the Army, the Party, and the Secret Police are all watching each other, ensuring that no service can reform the state without the agreement of all the others. As for the general population, they will never be able to properly revolt because they're too busy starving to be able to mount any sort of effective resistance, and because they've been taught to believe that the whole of the outside world is hostile to them.
This is not the fault of America. This is not even the fault of the USSR and China. This is the fault of the Kim family and the stranglehold they have on every aspect of North Korean existence. These are not the people you give the bomb to.
edited 4th Apr '17 7:51:04 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
Iran is more complicated, it doesn't pose a direct threat to the US but the thing is, lots of US trade partners in the Middle East are rivals with Iran, so they perceive Iran as an existential threat to their states.
Specially the Arab Sunni states in the Middle East not really liking a Persian Shiite state right next to them, with a long history of power struggles and warfare that predate the very existence of the US as a country.
Israel, rationally or not, doesn't want any other Middle Eastern country with nuclear capability mostly because Israel is small enough to be nuked out of the map and because every time any Middle Eastern country got too powerful, they turned their sights on Israel on the very first opportunity. They have the notion that any development that gives other Middle Eastern states more military and political power will invariably harm them because it decreased their relative power towards other states in the region and a nuclear arms race between the Shia and Sunni states is the last thing they want.
The Republicans themselves have a chip on the shoulder with Iran, since the Reagan Era for some reasons that I guess everyone at this point is tired of hearing.
I wouldn't listen to Chomsky on international affairs, he usually ignores the nuances of international politics and definitely ignores the roles of other global powers like China and Russia and the regional powers power struggles in their respective regions.
Inter arma enim silent leges@Krieger22
I am not defending North Korea. I don't dispute that it is a brutal dictatorship, and that its people live in horrible conditions. I don't think it can be trusted with nuclear weapons. I know it might attack their neighbors without provocation. I don't claim that anything it does is justified. Please, stop misrepresenting what I'm saying.
edited 4th Apr '17 7:42:13 PM by henry42
One does not shake the box containing the sticky notes of doom!Chomsky is way too eager to blame everything on America, ignoring that other countries have agency and responsibility for shit happening too.
As for North Korea and nukes...No. HELL NO. I wouldn't trust that psychopathic man-baby Jong Un with anything more dangerous than a napkin, let alone something that can wipe out a city.
edited 4th Apr '17 7:48:13 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedI've seen a lot of this, and it depresses the hell out of me. One of the most common refrains I've run into from my fellow leftists is that Saddam wasn't so bad, or even that Bush was somehow a worse human being than Saddam. Both propositions are absurd. George W Bush was a disaster of a president but he did not run a genocide. Saddam Hussein did, and they're still finding mass graves. Human Rights Watch gave Saddam an estimated bodycount of 250 000 Iraqis in 2004, and that was before anyone got the chance to go looking for grave sites. That's all without mentioning the Iran-Iraq War, which he started, and which claimed at least a million victims, military an civilian alike, before running its course.
Maybe to some people, that looks like stability. Maybe to some people that looks like a regime whose loss we should mourn. It sure as hell doesn't to me. That isn't to say the Iraq War was justified; it wasn't, and it just wound up adding more bodies to the pile. But Saddam Hussein is not somebody we should miss.
I lost all patience for Chomsky when he turned apologist for the Cambodian genocide. Every time it was brought up he'd scream about what the US-backed junta did in Indonesia, as though there could not be more than one genocide in the world at a time.
edited 4th Apr '17 7:52:49 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
That's it, I'm seriously beginning to consider the possibility that Chomsky has made an account on this site and used it to prowl around Yack Fest and edit numerous pages in the process. Everything you guys are saying sounds on point with someone who would claim to be an avid follower of "left-wing history".
Alright, some actual news:
Sanctuary state’ bill passes California Senate
edited 4th Apr '17 8:26:58 PM by FluffyMcChicken
Nice run down of what happened over the weekend by Seth Myers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gq6T1V5rYjI&t=169s
More Keith Obermann about Trump/Russia and Michael Flinn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jlBeRTg6Iw
edited 4th Apr '17 8:38:15 PM by megaeliz
In some good news, for the first time a federal appeals court has ruled that the civil rights act protects LGBT from workplace discrimination-this may not seem like much in the wake of Obergefell Hodges, but it is a huge step in the right direction and might be a watershed moment [1]
. Small victories, one at a time.

edited 4th Apr '17 6:39:17 PM by Bat178