Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Donald Trump, US President #47, US President #45, convicted felon, twice impeached, four times indicted, liable of rape, convicted for financial fraud, guilty of hiding hush money payments to porn actress in attempt to influence 2016 elections
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | ... | 489 | 490 | 491 | 492 | 493 | 494 | 495 | 496 | 497 | 498 | 499 | ... | 2483
tdgeek
30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1879587 9-Oct-2017 07:56
Send private message quote this post

 I know most here want diplomacy and talks, but what are the talks supposed to be about?  NK, you are now an official nuclear armed state, well done? While we are here, here is aid.

MikeB4
MikeB4
18777 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified
Trusted
Subscriber

  #1879588 9-Oct-2017 08:00
Send private message quote this post

tdgeek:

 I know most here want diplomacy and talks, but what are the talks supposed to be about?  NK, you are now an official nuclear armed state, well done? While we are here, here is aid.



The talks first and most important task is to avert war. Once this is achieved then talks can continue on how best to work with North Korea on a mutually acceptable solution.




Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Pumpedd
1759 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 887
Inactive user


  #1879589 9-Oct-2017 08:08
Send private message quote this post

MikeB4: @Pumpedd how has our nuclear free policy affected our way of life or prosperity, and how does maintaining it make the poor poorer?

 

Being dumped from ANZUS cost us billions ie the economy over many years. I believe the effect is probably negated now, although we would have had a FTA with US by now like Australia. That alone costs us billions over the years. I am sure you could look up and see what a FTA with US would give us. As far as NZ opting out of the nuclear deal to keep us nuke free....you seem to forget we are nothing in the world. Aus is only a few hours away and has nuke ships visiting. I am sure if we needed to be defended we would welcome nukes.

 

Where would the second world war be without nukes?

 

Are nukes not the best deterrent available?

 

NZ will probably need nuclear powered energy before too long if we want to save our rivers, and use less fossil fuels.

 

But Mike I know you will never agree with me as you have a good set of blinkers.

tdgeek
30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1879591 9-Oct-2017 08:13
Send private message quote this post

MikeB4:
tdgeek:

 

 I know most here want diplomacy and talks, but what are the talks supposed to be about?  NK, you are now an official nuclear armed state, well done? While we are here, here is aid.

 



The talks first and most important task is to avert war. Once this is achieved then talks can continue on how best to work with North Korea on a mutually acceptable solution.

 

Every time I ask this, I get this type of political answer. Its like asking how do we stop ISIS and being told we will implement measures to stop ISIS, problem solved. Clearly the talsk have to be about giving NK an official and accepted nuclear status, and aid, and the US moving out as off course there is now no danger, and of course we can 100% trust NK to abide by the talks, and give them 20 billion in aid. The talks have to satisfy all of NK's wants and dont worry about the rest of the globe, then talks can succeed. Or the US can sign a document stating that there is no desire or wish to regime change NK, but that wont be accepted. Or we can ask NK to disarm and rely on China to support and protect it, that wont be accepted.

MikeB4
MikeB4
18777 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified
Trusted
Subscriber

  #1879594 9-Oct-2017 08:20
Send private message quote this post

Pumpedd:

MikeB4: @Pumpedd how has our nuclear free policy affected our way of life or prosperity, and how does maintaining it make the poor poorer?


Being dumped from ANZUS cost us billions ie the economy over many years. I believe the effect is probably negated now, although we would have had a FTA with US by now like Australia. That alone costs us billions over the years. I am sure you could look up and see what a FTA with US would give us. As far as NZ opting out of the nuclear deal to keep us nuke free....you seem to forget we are nothing in the world. Aus is only a few hours away and has nuke ships visiting. I am sure if we needed to be defended we would welcome nukes.


Where would the second world war be without nukes?


Are nukes not the best deterrent available?


NZ will probably need nuclear powered energy before too long if we want to save our rivers, and use less fossil fuels.


But Mike I know you will never agree with me as you have a good set of blinkers.



ANZUS was not a trade agreement, it was a mutual defence agreement. If you track NZs GDP and growth rates they have been higher in the time since the Nuclear ban than before.

I don’t have blinkers on. I will politely as you to provide evidence of your claim that this has cost us billions?

ANZUS probably cost us considerably by dragging us into conflicts we did not need to or should have been in e.g Vietnam. Deactivation of ANZUS has the potential to cost us considerable money and probably jobs. The Government would be required to spend a lot more on Defence at the cost of other Government service like welfare, health and education.




Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Pumpedd
1759 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 887
Inactive user


  #1879595 9-Oct-2017 08:22
Send private message quote this post

tdgeek:

 

MikeB4:
tdgeek:

 

 I know most here want diplomacy and talks, but what are the talks supposed to be about?  NK, you are now an official nuclear armed state, well done? While we are here, here is aid.

 



The talks first and most important task is to avert war. Once this is achieved then talks can continue on how best to work with North Korea on a mutually acceptable solution.

 

Every time I ask this, I get this type of political answer. Its like asking how do we stop ISIS and being told we will implement measures to stop ISIS, problem solved. Clearly the talsk have to be about giving NK an official and accepted nuclear status, and aid, and the US moving out as off course there is now no danger, and of course we can 100% trust NK to abide by the talks, and give them 20 billion in aid. The talks have to satisfy all of NK's wants and dont worry about the rest of the globe, then talks can succeed. Or the US can sign a document stating that there is no desire or wish to regime change NK, but that wont be accepted. Or we can ask NK to disarm and rely on China to support and protect it, that wont be accepted.

 

 

I tend to agree, that by starving them wont solve anything other than make them more determined. But I disagree that the world should allow them to be a nuclear state. You must remember how tyrannical they are. Kim has murdered almost his whole family....They murder their own people just for sneezing inappropriately.

 

You have to ask how would a government like  NK use their nukes if they disagreed with any foreign government. That is why Japan, SK and Australia are so concerned as they should be.

Pumpedd
1759 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 887
Inactive user


  #1879596 9-Oct-2017 08:24
Send private message quote this post

MikeB4:
Pumpedd:

 

MikeB4: @Pumpedd how has our nuclear free policy affected our way of life or prosperity, and how does maintaining it make the poor poorer?

 

 

 

Being dumped from ANZUS cost us billions ie the economy over many years. I believe the effect is probably negated now, although we would have had a FTA with US by now like Australia. That alone costs us billions over the years. I am sure you could look up and see what a FTA with US would give us. As far as NZ opting out of the nuclear deal to keep us nuke free....you seem to forget we are nothing in the world. Aus is only a few hours away and has nuke ships visiting. I am sure if we needed to be defended we would welcome nukes.

 

 

 

Where would the second world war be without nukes?

 

 

 

Are nukes not the best deterrent available?

 

 

 

NZ will probably need nuclear powered energy before too long if we want to save our rivers, and use less fossil fuels.

 

 

 

But Mike I know you will never agree with me as you have a good set of blinkers.

 



ANZUS was not a trade agreement, it was a mutual defence agreement. If you track NZs GDP and growth rates they have been higher in the time since the Nuclear ban than before.

I don’t have blinkers on. I will politely as you to provide evidence of your claim that this has cost us billions?

ANZUS probably cost us considerably by dragging us into conflicts we did not need to or should have been in e.g Vietnam. Deactivation of ANZUS has the potential to cost us considerable money and probably jobs. The Government would be required to spend a lot more on Defence at the cost of other Government service like welfare, health and education.

 

Not having a US FTA costs billions over the years on its own. ANZUS was always way more than just a defense treaty. The conflicts we joined since ANZUS were due to NZ being a good global citizen, and we must continue to be just that. 

MikeB4
MikeB4
18777 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified
Trusted
Subscriber

  #1879598 9-Oct-2017 08:25
Send private message quote this post

tdgeek:

MikeB4:
tdgeek:


 I know most here want diplomacy and talks, but what are the talks supposed to be about?  NK, you are now an official nuclear armed state, well done? While we are here, here is aid.




The talks first and most important task is to avert war. Once this is achieved then talks can continue on how best to work with North Korea on a mutually acceptable solution.


Every time I ask this, I get this type of political answer. Its like asking how do we stop ISIS and being told we will implement measures to stop ISIS, problem solved. Clearly the talsk have to be about giving NK an official and accepted nuclear status, and aid, and the US moving out as off course there is now no danger, and of course we can 100% trust NK to abide by the talks, and give them 20 billion in aid. The talks have to satisfy all of NK's wants and dont worry about the rest of the globe, then talks can succeed. Or the US can sign a document stating that there is no desire or wish to regime change NK, but that wont be accepted. Or we can ask NK to disarm and rely on China to support and protect it, that wont be accepted.



I am not sure you read my post, I said the talks should provide a MUTUALLY acceptable solution. This does not mean a unilaterally imposed solution.




Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

tdgeek
30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1879599 9-Oct-2017 08:27
Send private message quote this post

Pumpedd:

 

tdgeek:

 

MikeB4:
tdgeek:

 

 I know most here want diplomacy and talks, but what are the talks supposed to be about?  NK, you are now an official nuclear armed state, well done? While we are here, here is aid.

 



The talks first and most important task is to avert war. Once this is achieved then talks can continue on how best to work with North Korea on a mutually acceptable solution.

 

Every time I ask this, I get this type of political answer. Its like asking how do we stop ISIS and being told we will implement measures to stop ISIS, problem solved. Clearly the talsk have to be about giving NK an official and accepted nuclear status, and aid, and the US moving out as off course there is now no danger, and of course we can 100% trust NK to abide by the talks, and give them 20 billion in aid. The talks have to satisfy all of NK's wants and dont worry about the rest of the globe, then talks can succeed. Or the US can sign a document stating that there is no desire or wish to regime change NK, but that wont be accepted. Or we can ask NK to disarm and rely on China to support and protect it, that wont be accepted.

 

 

I tend to agree, that by starving them wont solve anything other than make them more determined. But I disagree that the world should allow them to be a nuclear state. You must remember how tyrannical they are. Kim has murdered almost his whole family....They murder their own people just for sneezing inappropriately.

 

You have to ask how would a government like  NK use their nukes if they disagreed with any foreign government. That is why Japan, SK and Australia are so concerned as they should be.

 

 

Exactly. My point re accepting them as a nuclear state isn't my suggestion, but if talks were to happen that is non negotiable for NK, so I fail to see how talks can achieve anything. Yet while I agree that diplomacy is better then potential war, when I ask about what talks will encompass, there is no response, aside that talks should happen. 

Fred99
13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018


  #1879600 9-Oct-2017 08:29
Send private message quote this post

Pumpedd:

 

MikeB4: @Pumpedd how has our nuclear free policy affected our way of life or prosperity, and how does maintaining it make the poor poorer?

 

Being dumped from ANZUS cost us billions ie the economy over many years. I believe the effect is probably negated now, although we would have had a FTA with US by now like Australia. That alone costs us billions over the years. I am sure you could look up and see what a FTA with US would give us. As far as NZ opting out of the nuclear deal to keep us nuke free....you seem to forget we are nothing in the world. Aus is only a few hours away and has nuke ships visiting. I am sure if we needed to be defended we would welcome nukes.

 

Where would the second world war be without nukes?

 

Are nukes not the best deterrent available?

 

NZ will probably need nuclear powered energy before too long if we want to save our rivers, and use less fossil fuels.

 

But Mike I know you will never agree with me as you have a good set of blinkers.

 

 

AUSUS FTA doesn't show any real gains for Aus - mainly gains for the US - in bilateral trade.

 

NZ would be screwed by the US.  Even with the TPPA there would have only been tiny gains, if any, to NZ.

 

The "F for Free" in these trade agreements is a joke.  When the USA is involved there are so many exclusions, and then as soon as it appears that the US is at a competitive disadvantage, they litigate.

 

300% punitive tariffs being suggested for Bombardier, at Boeing's behest, even though the aircraft deal that set that off Boeing didn't have an equivalent aircraft to offer.

 

While nukes had deterrent value - and hence arguably saved the world from direct conflict between "superpowers" since WW2, it didn't stop the alternative - proxy wars costing millions of lives, and subsequent destabilisation of entire regions, all over the planet.  The present situation with DPRK is a direct follow-on from that.

 

 

 

 

tdgeek
30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1879601 9-Oct-2017 08:36
Send private message quote this post

MikeB4:
tdgeek:

 

MikeB4:
tdgeek:

 

 

 

 I know most here want diplomacy and talks, but what are the talks supposed to be about?  NK, you are now an official nuclear armed state, well done? While we are here, here is aid.

 

 

 



The talks first and most important task is to avert war. Once this is achieved then talks can continue on how best to work with North Korea on a mutually acceptable solution.

 

 

 

Every time I ask this, I get this type of political answer. Its like asking how do we stop ISIS and being told we will implement measures to stop ISIS, problem solved. Clearly the talsk have to be about giving NK an official and accepted nuclear status, and aid, and the US moving out as off course there is now no danger, and of course we can 100% trust NK to abide by the talks, and give them 20 billion in aid. The talks have to satisfy all of NK's wants and dont worry about the rest of the globe, then talks can succeed. Or the US can sign a document stating that there is no desire or wish to regime change NK, but that wont be accepted. Or we can ask NK to disarm and rely on China to support and protect it, that wont be accepted.

 



I am not sure you read my post, I said the talks should provide a MUTUALLY acceptable solution. This does not mean a unilaterally imposed solution.

 

What I want to know is what matters can be mutually accepted? IMO NK will wants only its own desires met, i.e. unilateral. Talks should find ways to get past the core issues, but NK isnt interested, it wants its own issues met, end of story. And it wants aid, its reward for breaking all the rules and breaking all agreements. Years ago, it was given aid, that particular aid was late arriving, they said thats a declaration of war (as they have stated many times) How do you have talks with that 100% unilaterally focussed attitude?

 

Leave them alone, leave this as an impasse and stalemate. Tell the US and UN to ignore them and cease any justified response. Let them rot. I can't see any solution, aside from a regime change, but its unlikely that can happen without full on war. Unless he magically just disappeared. You may well find that the NK military might be quite happy to engage in productive talks then. Then maybe the rest of the populous can have something to eat as well as the military

Fred99
13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018


  #1879606 9-Oct-2017 08:58
Send private message quote this post

 

One or two more tweets like this - and Trump's presidency becomes untenable.

MikeB4
MikeB4
18777 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified
Trusted
Subscriber

  #1879609 9-Oct-2017 09:13
Send private message quote this post

tdgeek:

 

MikeB4:
tdgeek:

 

MikeB4:
tdgeek:

 

 

 

 I know most here want diplomacy and talks, but what are the talks supposed to be about?  NK, you are now an official nuclear armed state, well done? While we are here, here is aid.

 

 

 



The talks first and most important task is to avert war. Once this is achieved then talks can continue on how best to work with North Korea on a mutually acceptable solution.

 

 

 

Every time I ask this, I get this type of political answer. Its like asking how do we stop ISIS and being told we will implement measures to stop ISIS, problem solved. Clearly the talsk have to be about giving NK an official and accepted nuclear status, and aid, and the US moving out as off course there is now no danger, and of course we can 100% trust NK to abide by the talks, and give them 20 billion in aid. The talks have to satisfy all of NK's wants and dont worry about the rest of the globe, then talks can succeed. Or the US can sign a document stating that there is no desire or wish to regime change NK, but that wont be accepted. Or we can ask NK to disarm and rely on China to support and protect it, that wont be accepted.

 



I am not sure you read my post, I said the talks should provide a MUTUALLY acceptable solution. This does not mean a unilaterally imposed solution.

 

What I want to know is what matters can be mutually accepted? IMO NK will wants only its own desires met, i.e. unilateral. Talks should find ways to get past the core issues, but NK isnt interested, it wants its own issues met, end of story. And it wants aid, its reward for breaking all the rules and breaking all agreements. Years ago, it was given aid, that particular aid was late arriving, they said thats a declaration of war (as they have stated many times) How do you have talks with that 100% unilaterally focussed attitude?

 

Leave them alone, leave this as an impasse and stalemate. Tell the US and UN to ignore them and cease any justified response. Let them rot. I can't see any solution, aside from a regime change, but its unlikely that can happen without full on war. Unless he magically just disappeared. You may well find that the NK military might be quite happy to engage in productive talks then. Then maybe the rest of the populous can have something to eat as well as the military

 

 

In my experience both professional and private is intransigence leads nowhere compromise leads to agreement. Right now there is very little difference between North Korea's and the US attitudes and actions in this dispute. The intransigence displayed  by both will lead to a very costly impasse in which no one wins. 




Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

MikeB4
MikeB4
18777 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified
Trusted
Subscriber

  #1879611 9-Oct-2017 09:19
Send private message quote this post

Pumpedd:

 

MikeB4: @Pumpedd how has our nuclear free policy affected our way of life or prosperity, and how does maintaining it make the poor poorer?

 

Being dumped from ANZUS cost us billions ie the economy over many years. I believe the effect is probably negated now, although we would have had a FTA with US by now like Australia. That alone costs us billions over the years. I am sure you could look up and see what a FTA with US would give us. As far as NZ opting out of the nuclear deal to keep us nuke free....you seem to forget we are nothing in the world. Aus is only a few hours away and has nuke ships visiting. I am sure if we needed to be defended we would welcome nukes.

 

Where would the second world war be without nukes?

 

Are nukes not the best deterrent available?

 

NZ will probably need nuclear powered energy before too long if we want to save our rivers, and use less fossil fuels.

 

But Mike I know you will never agree with me as you have a good set of blinkers.

 

 

 

 

I will answer in order...

 

At the end of the Second World War the US had two nukes they used them both, they did not need to. The first arguably yes, the second was merely a message to the Soviets.

 

Nukes are not the best deferent, mutual respect and wellbeing is.

 

NZ does not need Nuclear power we have enough renewable resource generation that does not have high long term risks. Our wealth is based on primary industries that would be destroyed by a nuclear accident.




Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

MikeB4
MikeB4
18777 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified
Trusted
Subscriber

  #1879613 9-Oct-2017 09:21
Send private message quote this post

It is clear by he attempts by Trump to derail Tillersons efforts to resolve the NK situation that Trump does not want a diplomatic solution he has decided on War and he is also lining up his next target namely Iran.




Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

1 | ... | 489 | 490 | 491 | 492 | 493 | 494 | 495 | 496 | 497 | 498 | 499 | ... | 2483
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic


Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.


Updates »

Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.


RSS feeds
Main feed
Forums feed
Copyright
©2002-2026 Geekzone®
Site features
Geekzone BI dashboard
Geekzone Badges
Geekzone Status Page

 

Site Information
Subscribe to Geekzone
Privacy Statement
Forum Usage Guidelines (FUG)
Advertising
Trademark and copyright