• ssu
    452
    I tend to believe he actually did play a part in the recent de-escalation of tension involving North Korea, but not in a way that enhances the standing of the US in the world. I think China dealt with it and left the US irrelevant.frank
    Well, going off from the Iran deal sent a clear message that Americans in general, but especially the Trump administration cannot be trusted. If his totally ignorant base doesn't like something, Trump's going to change his views to woo his supporters... totally irrelevant of the foreign policy impact on the issue at hand.

    And what on Earth is this "de-escalation" here? That first Trump talks tough (or talks about little rocket man) and then whants to meet the guy? That North Korea hasn't made a nuclear experiment or launched a missile for some time? Historically true "escalation" in the Korean peninsula has been quite deadly: North Koreans attacking and killing US personnel on the DMZ, sinking a South Korean naval vessel, bombarding a small town on an island.
  • frank
    566
    Well, going off from the Iran deal sent a clear message that Americans in general, but especially the Trump administration cannot be trusted.ssu

    Let me tell you something about trust. :D

    I don't think the Iranians were complying with the agreement, were they?

    And what on Earth is this "de-escalation" here?ssu

    As an untrustworthy American, I say de-escalation is having NK stop threatening the US mainland. That kind of talk is bad joo joo for everybody. Trust me.
  • Cavacava
    2.4k
    I think the idea that North/South Korea peace in the bag is questionable. North Korea has a very long history of negotiating with the SK and Washington, and it has never gone far, except to embarrass SK & Washington.

    After the US and South Korea started joint military drills last week, North Korea canceled a planned meeting with South Korean officials on Tuesday and even threatened to back out of the historic summit between President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un scheduled for June 12 in Singapore.

    It remains to be seen if the summit will occur, and exactly what if anything will come out of it.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    3.8k
    Think of "we" as a meeting point between "us" and "them", or "you" and "I" where we can agree or disagree with one another on some points but "we" agree to go forward.ArguingWAristotleTiff

    I agree that you and are "we". I just don't like it when "we" becomes us, as opposed to them, when others do not agree with what we agree to.

    But that is not the prevailing thought that guides the average American, as I consider myself to be, nor the average soldier of which I have family. My feeling is that we are not "owed" anything, when we willingly offer help to whomever around the world needs help in fighting for their freedom.ArguingWAristotleTiff

    It's hard to say how prevalent this attitude actually is. I've heard it expressed as if it were common place, especially amongst soldiers. And president Trump seems to express this attitude, that America gives more than its fair share militarily. But what is the fair share is dependent on whether America is fighting to protect its own interests, or whether it is fighting for the freedom and liberties of others.

    I do not agree with you that the only reason we "invest" our own blood and toil, is for a financial profit.ArguingWAristotleTiff

    I guess you have a different understanding of "invest" than I do. We ought not use that word then.

    I know that some find it hard to believe but Americans actually do believe in helping others fighting for their own freedom, for their own liberty.ArguingWAristotleTiff

    I do not find this hard to believe at all. The problem I referred to though, is the problem of Americans who are duped into believing that they are helping others, fighting for their freedom, when really the fight is for some other reason. When this happens, the others who are supposedly being helped, may prove to be ungrateful, and those who are believing that they are helping the others cannot the ungratefulness.

    On a personal note, my Uncle willingly served the United States Army for 33 years beginning with enlisting for Vietnam and ending with Desert Storm. He certainly didn't choose to devote his life to fight for the capitalists of any region. No. He served for one reason and one reason only and that is his dedication to help those fighting for liberty.ArguingWAristotleTiff

    Do you think that the average soldier in the US military knows the reasons why those who make the decisions to send them into battle in some distant land make that decision? Sure, an instance like Afghanistan after 9/11 is somewhat obvious, but after WWII "to help those fighting for liberty" was more like a catch phrase carried over from that earlier war, than a real reason. What if there's a difference in reason for being there, between those calling the shots (to protect our interests), and those firing the shots (to help those fighting for liberty)?
  • René Descartes
    547
    I would like to see this happen mainly because it would be so funny. But does he deserve it? I tend to believe he actually did play a part in the recent de-escalation of tension involving North Korea, but not in a way that enhances the standing of the US in the world. I think China dealt with it and left the US irrelevant.frank

    It would definitely be up there with Aung San Suu Kyi, Henry Kissinger, Barrack Obama and Neville Chamberlain. There's already been four US presidents and almost five with Al Gore, not to mention the 21 Americans who have received it. The peace prize no longer has the same value than it used to with people like MLK.
  • SophistiCat
    348
    As an untrustworthy American, I say de-escalation is having NK stop threatening the US mainland. That kind of talk is bad joo joo for everybody. Trust me.frank

    So, deescalation means tampering down belligerent rhetoric for a while? That's a pretty low bar you are setting, but then chances are, based on past experience and other considerations, that that will indeed be the scope of achievement in the present iteration.

    The pattern has been that NK ratchets up the threat level, then at the height of the confrontation it suddenly appears to back down and offers talks. Lots of pomp and ceremony follows; NK extracts temporary relief from its opponents in the form of lifted sanctions, aid and investment, in exchange for a temporary change of rhetoric, vague promises, and concessions that later turn out to be hollow or that it simply refuses to deliver.

    NK is a survivor. It doesn't play a long game - it executes these political maneuvers in order to prolong its existence for a few more years. And I don't see anything in the present iteration that would seem to be any different from the past ones. There is no reason at all for NK to give up its highly successful nuclear program (successful politically, that is) and every reason for it to keep it up. As for the unification of Korea, that would entail a suicide for the present NK regime. If a unification ever happens, it obviously won't come about as a result of high-level negotiations with NK in its present state. Before a unification can happen, the regime will either have to be toppled or weakened to a great extent, or it will have to undergo extensive reforms.
  • frank
    566
    You may be right, but I think the world scene is changing. As China takes more of a leadership role than it has in the past, maybe its relationship to NK will change. We'll see.
  • frank
    566
    The peace prize no longer has the same value than it used to with people like MLK.René Descartes

    Why do you say that?
  • ArguingWAristotleTiff
    2.4k
    It's hard to say how prevalent this attitude actually is. I've heard it expressed as if it were common place, especially amongst soldiers. And president Trump seems to express this attitude, that America gives more than its fair share militarily. But what is the fair share is dependent on whether America is fighting to protect its own interests, or whether it is fighting for the freedom and liberties of others.Metaphysician Undercover

    To me? There is no "fair share" in helping others and maybe that is a fault of mine, that keeps me from seeing what you are seeing. I am not saying that America does not assess the upside of standing alongside those who are fighting for their own liberty but we also accept the downside risk of our actions, which many times has been expressed as America not being able to keep it's nose out of other peoples business.

    I know that some find it hard to believe but Americans actually do believe in helping others fighting for their own freedom, for their own liberty.Metaphysician Undercover

    I do not find this hard to believe at all. The problem I referred to though, is the problem of Americans who are duped into believing that they are helping others, fighting for their freedom, when really the fight is for some other reason. When this happens, the others who are supposedly being helped, may prove to be ungrateful, and those who are believing that they are helping the others cannot the ungratefulness.

    This as I noted is one of the downside risks of helping others but I don't know that it is a result of being duped so much as it is that expectations are set up for others. The expectations are based on our own beliefs mixed with those who are fighting to be free and often times the two do not survive without the other there. Which is why I believe the USA should maintain the DMZ long after the two nations peacefully become one.

    Do you think that the average soldier in the US military knows the reasons why those who make the decisions to send them into battle in some distant land make that decision? Sure, an instance like Afghanistan after 9/11 is somewhat obvious, but after WWII "to help those fighting for liberty" was more like a catch phrase carried over from that earlier war, than a real reason. What if there's a difference in reason for being there, between those calling the shots (to protect our interests), and those firing the shots (to help those fighting for liberty)?Metaphysician Undercover

    Yes, I do believe the 1% of our population who willingly serve our nations military, know the reasons why they are being sent to a "distant land". Next week our God Daughter who is 25 and a Navy Officer serving on the USS Iwo Jima in the sea of Japan, will be pinned for her next officer rank, in command of her amphibious assault ship. She clearly understands why she is positioned where she is and it is likely a mix of protecting those that are already there, along with helping those whose liberty we have been protecting for the last 60 years. I will ask her your question and report back to you the honest answer I receive.

    May she safely return home to her family after she returns a home to another family in that "distant land". :heart:
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    3.8k
    To me? There is no "fair share" in helping others and maybe that is a fault of mine, that keeps me from seeing what you are seeing.ArguingWAristotleTiff

    That's exactly what I think. That's why when people are talking about the fair share, in respect to military expenditure, they are not talking about helping others, they are talking about a joint venture.

    This as I noted is one of the downside risks of helping others but I don't know that it is a result of being duped so much as it is that expectations are set up for others. The expectations are based on our own beliefs mixed with those who are fighting to be free and often times the two do not survive without the other there. Which is why I believe the USA should maintain the DMZ long after the two nations peacefully become one.ArguingWAristotleTiff

    I know what you mean, It's actually a very complicated issue which I presented in a sort of simplistic, one-sided way. In reality, different cultures have very different structures of beliefs, so if we base our judgements of what others need, on our own beliefs, we're bound to get some things wrong. Ungratefulness is hard to swallow, but for anyone intent on helping others, it has to be an expectation.

    I will ask her your question and report back to you the honest answer I receive.ArguingWAristotleTiff

    I'd appreciate that, I honestly believe opinions are valuable. If we don't share our opinions they reach in separate ways, and "we" is divided into us and them. There's two directions, toward division and toward unity. If we don't share opinions there is no hope of unity. But even when opinions are discussed sometimes division is required. Why?

    May she safely return home to her family after she returns a home to another family in that "distant land".ArguingWAristotleTiff

    Yes, I hope that's the way it works out.
  • René Descartes
    547
    Why do you say that?frank

    Due to the above stated reasons.
  • ssu
    452
    As an untrustworthy American, I say de-escalation is having NK stop threatening the US mainland. That kind of talk is bad joo joo for everybody. Trust me.frank
    And just when has that de-escalation really happened? When the media isn't telling about a possible conflict, but is hopeful? That's the "de-escalation"? I agree here with Sophisticat.

    North Korea has it's nuclear program. North Korea is building nuclear weapons. The hem and haw of the political discourse between the countries is absolutely nothing new. Nothing new. And this time there isn't even anything on the the table ...other that the two leaders will possibly meet.

    The fact is that likely there will be those few missiles that will threaten US mainland. If they don't already exist. The media is quite mute about it, but when you read the interviews of the US generals and admirals responsible of the Korean theatre, their message is pretty bleak.

    We can hope for a breakthrough, but that is unlikely. I'd figure this is just the ordinary we have seen in the Korean peninsula: sometimes there is hope in the air, officials meet, something is discussed ...until tensions rise again from a missile test or some B-2 flying over South Korea.
  • frank
    566
    The past doesn't always tell us about the future. Crazy new things happen all the time.
  • Banno
    2.6k
    ...then of course there is all he has done on the issue of gun control; schools are such safe places now.
  • ArguingWAristotleTiff
    2.4k
    ...then of course there is all he has done on the issue of gun control; schools are such safe places now.Banno

    :roll: your reply feels like a veiled attempt at cross contamination of threads but the fabric is stiffer than the Duchess's Veil and allows it to pass....
  • ArguingWAristotleTiff
    2.4k
    In reality, different cultures have very different structures of beliefs, so if we base our judgements of what others need, on our own beliefs, we're bound to get some things wrong.Metaphysician Undercover

    That bridge between cultures is something we have yet to achieve anywhere in the world. Yet it likely exists as it's own thread between the two societies, families separated and made between citizens of both nations, sharing a similar heritage and with that common traditions.

    Ungratefulness is hard to swallow, but for anyone intent on helping others, it has to be an expectation.Metaphysician Undercover

    I absolutely agree with you which is why I try really hard not to impose my expectations on anyone but me. My ability to back up that non imposition of expectations of my children was tested and after listening to them, would never have made a wit bit of difference on their opinions even if I had tried.

    I asked them (21yrs old and 18yrs old) if they would support the reimplantation of the draft if necessary. After a bunch of defining who, what, where and why it came down to one simple factor. They would agree with the draft but those drafted would only serve on our shores. The future generation is not buying into nation building or arms races. It is about self preservation through a mutli layer system of defenses.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    3.8k
    I asked them (21yrs old and 18yrs old) if they would support the reimplantation of the draft if necessary. After a bunch of defining who, what, where and why it came down to one simple factor. They would agree with the draft but those drafted would only serve on our shores. The future generation is not buying into nation building or arms races. It is about self preservation through a mutli layer system of defenses.ArguingWAristotleTiff

    There is a very real need for serving in your own land, as we need a rapid response to natural disasters, terrorism, and other possible problems which sometimes require large resources of human commitment. In the area where I live, some of the high school jurisdictions have adopted a program whereby students are required to submit a specified number of volunteer hours in order to graduate. This type of necessary volunteerism, in which one is required to volunteer, but may choose the type of work volunteered for, could produce an army of forced volunteers, and this may make a good replacement for the old draft system. It would be a shift away from the focus on foreign to service, toward more community service at home, though the option of foreign service would still be available to those who choose it.
  • ssu
    452
    Actually, there would be in my view a true way to solve this:

    Have simply a peace agreement. One should remember that there is only an armstice between the countries.

    Have both South and North Korea reduce there conventional armed forces dramatically, North Korea to give up it's nuclear weapons and simply have the US make a gradual withdrawal from South Korea. Okinawa and the bases in Japan are quite close By still to defend South Korea.

    Especially a Republican administration, at least in theory, could make such a move if it could (again in theory) contain it's own hawks. Democrats simply couldn't be against a peace deal.

    Unfortunately this actually goes too close to the North Korean view and Trump already has dismissed it. And the totally inept Trump has already the neocons in charge of foreign policy, so that's that.
  • ArguingWAristotleTiff
    2.4k
    In the area where I live, some of the high school jurisdictions have adopted a program whereby students are required to submit a specified number of volunteer hours in order to graduate. This type of necessary volunteerism, in which one is required to volunteer, but may choose the type of work volunteered for, could produce an army of forced volunteers, and this may make a good replacement for the old draft system. It would be a shift away from the focus on foreign to service, toward more community service at home, though the option of foreign service would still be available to those who choose it.Metaphysician Undercover

    This is an impressive idea and one that would seem to work for everyone. I am not sure where our dedication to civil service was lost but your idea is a great way to redefine what it means to be part of a community. Participation in the success of that community instead of leaving it for someone else to worry about. There is a community program out here that I wanted to become a representative for called CERT a community emergency response team and was ready to enroll only to have the idea put in my head that as CERT rep, I could be asked to collect fellow citizens firearms, under circumstances we do not yet know and that I could not do. So I decided not to enroll though I am not sure that would be the same conclusion if I entertained the idea again.
  • Sapientia
    5.4k
    forced volunteersMetaphysician Undercover

    Now there's an oxymoron if ever I saw one. Anyway, I find it disgusting that a discussion about a peace prize is being used to put forward views in favour of the draft. Because nothing says "peace" more than being forced into war.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.