USMCA: U.S. and Canada Reach Basis of Deal to Replace NAFTA Hours Before U.S.-Mexico Deadline

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Flgator2, Oct 1, 2018.

  1. g8r.tom

    g8r.tom Well-Known Member
    Lifetime Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,445
    Oxbucks:
    $1,257
    Ratings:
    +1,343 / -22
    BS - it is working.It worked with NATO. It worked with NAFTA. It worked with SK and trade. It is working so far with NK. It worked on the tax cuts. It worked in the Iran deal. It worked on the kyoto protocol.

    And he will submit his deals to congress, unlike Obama.

    You don't like his style. I get it. Many don't. BFD.

    He IS getting results and that is why his supporters, like me, will vote for him, pretty much no matter what the press turns up from last century.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Drunk Drunk x 1
    • List
    • 5-Star Finger

      5-Star Finger Apex predator of the political forum biome
      Lifetime Member

      Joined:
      Nov 16, 2017
      Messages:
      1,636
      Oxbucks:
      $1,546
      Ratings:
      +2,719 / -21
      You having a senior moment, Ancient? :) I never said any such thing. I think the other guy was talking about how little had changed. Actually a lot more is going on with NK than is being widely discussed - and that isn't the only place he is making waves.

       
    • Ancient Reptile

      Ancient Reptile Senior Member
      Supporting Member

      Joined:
      Mar 4, 2015
      Messages:
      3,919
      Oxbucks:
      $2,041
      Ratings:
      +2,693 / -171
      According to the msm he always looks like an idiot. Fortunately, that doesn't stop him from getting things done. Since you can only grasp one side, let me summarize:
      (1) none of actually knows how the NK effort will turn out;
      (2) you point out that previous administrations have tried and failed and conclude that Trump will necessarily fail as well;
      (3) we point out that previous administrations failed to veg nato to pay up and Trump succeeded, that prrvipre administrations failed to open up Canada's dairy market and Trump succeeded, that previous administrations failed to decrease unemployment and Trump succeeded (etc, etc) and we conclude that Trump has a chance to succeed with NK.
      So, by your lights, we are like the Obama worshipers.
      Until I am convinced that you are truly as dumb as you pretend to be, I am not going to interact with you.
       
    • Ancient Reptile

      Ancient Reptile Senior Member
      Supporting Member

      Joined:
      Mar 4, 2015
      Messages:
      3,919
      Oxbucks:
      $2,041
      Ratings:
      +2,693 / -171
      Sorry. I was right about the nice post anyway.
       
      • gatorev12

        gatorev12 Well-Known Member

        Joined:
        Aug 17, 2018
        Messages:
        660
        Oxbucks:
        $685
        Ratings:
        +687 / -49
        Good. Personally, it isn't much use talking to someone who gets confused and whose mind wanders when he can't gratuitously use "build the wall" "drain the swamp" or "make America great again" as an answer for a topic. You're out of your depth and that's ok.
         
        • Swamp Donkey

          Swamp Donkey TaggelwainLivesMatter
          Lifetime Member

          Joined:
          Jun 9, 2014
          Messages:
          40,050
          Oxbucks:
          $21,159
          Ratings:
          +45,419 / -1,633
          Youre a joke.

          Take your big govt worshipping bullshyt elsewhere. No one is buying.
           
          • Tay Bang

            Tay Bang I might have been mean to Byrd
            Lifetime Member

            Joined:
            Jul 25, 2018
            Messages:
            2,146
            Oxbucks:
            $1,045
            Ratings:
            +2,341 / -114
            Thank you.
             
          • gatorev12

            gatorev12 Well-Known Member

            Joined:
            Aug 17, 2018
            Messages:
            660
            Oxbucks:
            $685
            Ratings:
            +687 / -49
            What are you doing in here anyway? Quick! Someone posted something positive about Mullen on the sports board...you're urgently needed to downvote and facepalm dozens of posts there.
             
            • 5-Star Finger

              5-Star Finger Apex predator of the political forum biome
              Lifetime Member

              Joined:
              Nov 16, 2017
              Messages:
              1,636
              Oxbucks:
              $1,546
              Ratings:
              +2,719 / -21
              He lost me when he called Clinton handing over the ability to enrich uranium uninterrupted an accomplishment. The North had one site in 1994 that was serving as the entirety of its weapons program, which was located in Yongbyon. The Pentagon had a plan to take out this facility with impunity using our newly revealed F-117s. The North Korean integrated air-defense had zero chance of stopping it and both sides understood this. This would have got the lone reactor, all of the research, and perhaps a good number of their scientists working on the program to boot. It would have essentially decapitated their nuclear program.

              Clinton poo-pooed this idea because he thought it would lead to a war on Korean Peninsula, which is laughable given that NK is a Chinese puppet and the Chinese state of readiness for confrontation with the US (still very much at it's Cold War capability) would end in the economic destruction of China. See, at that time China had less than no way to stop our Navy from choking it out in short order due to it's geography problem. (For those of you that don't know what I'm talking about: China’s Maritime Choke Points - Geopolitical Futures). The only way China would have gotten involved at that point was in the event that the North had suicidally decided to attack Seoul with conventional weapons. China would have invaded and deposed the regime to prevent having the US do it in short order and having what China would view as an existential threat parked on it's border. Anyone that is telling you that a war in the 1990's with NK would have lasted more than 7 days doesn't know what they are talking about. Their air force today is still largely made up 50 plus year-old Chinese discount knockoffs of the MiG-17 and MiG-19.
              1280px-China_airforce_J5.jpg


              It was a moment in time for action, and instead - as was often the case with Clinton - he punted. What we got was Jimmy Carter giving away the farm for less than nothing - in fact, for the opposite of a good result. What we have now is a crisis another President is trying to confront. In absolutely every regard, Bill Clinton's presidency was an abject failure on the foreign policy front. A lot of the issues we are dealing with today have their roots in his administration's fecklessness or bumbling.
               
              • gatorev12

                gatorev12 Well-Known Member

                Joined:
                Aug 17, 2018
                Messages:
                660
                Oxbucks:
                $685
                Ratings:
                +687 / -49
                Your history and analysis is spot-on: Clinton probably should have opted for a decapitation strike in the 90s: North Korea had no way of stopping it and hadn't put anything underground yet. And China wouldn't have been in a position to help them: their armed forces were a shadow of what they are today and they would have been crushed in short order too.

                That said: the Clinton Agreement shuttered that main reactor and North Korea agreed to halt work on the two larger reactors capable of producing large-numbers of weapons-grade plutonium. They never did finish the reactors--and it's a good thing they didn't: otherwise, they would have built a lot more nuclear bombs by now.

                Clinton deserves a lot of blame for the present situation; yet it's also factual to say the problem would have been far worse if all three of those reactors were allowed to be finished and turning out lots of more material needed for bombs.
                 
              • 5-Star Finger

                5-Star Finger Apex predator of the political forum biome
                Lifetime Member

                Joined:
                Nov 16, 2017
                Messages:
                1,636
                Oxbucks:
                $1,546
                Ratings:
                +2,719 / -21
                A couple of problems here. First, the "Agreed Framework" (Link: https://www.nti.org/media/pdfs/aptagframe.pdf) was simply a political ploy by Clinton to try and secure a foreign policy victory prior to the election in 1994. This was the reason for the rush to get it completed at the end of October. It was never about stopping anything. We did not withdraw from our obligations under this agreement until 2002.

                Unless you are taking the word of Clinton apologists Robert Carlin (bio: https://www.ncnk.org/member-directory/robert-carlin) or Joel Whit (bio: Joel S. Wit) as you'll see in many of the stories churned out by the so-called fifth-estate; the real issue with this deal is that it essentially funded the entire program. The DPRK's problem was never the availability of uranium (it has large natural deposits) nor the work force to produce it (slave labor) it was the funding of the technological infrastructure to refine it and the money to acquire the scientific information needed to produce the weapon itself. Simply put, Clinton didn't stop or slow down anything. Economic gravity was already going to do that. If he had just done nothing - they wouldn't have the bomb. What was done was done for purely political window dressing. That was a common theme of that administration's foreign policy, unfortunately. As I mentioned in the post prior to this one, if he had acted decisively and proactively, they likely wouldn't even have a program and we'd probably have a different regime in DPRK. So there is no bad outcome from either doing nothing - or acting decisively. What was done was perhaps the only wrong decision.

                To illustrate:

                North Korea was on it's way to being a completely failed state. It couldn't feed its people let alone pursue a weapons program. See that hockey stick?

                upload_2018-10-5_11-54-23.png

                Now, let's look at item II, 1.

                "Within three months of the date of this Document, both sides will reduce barriers to
                trade and investment, including restrictions on telecommunications services and financial transactions."

                We did exactly that. Money flowed in to DPRK. The US provided roughly $500 million in free energy in the form of fuel oil delivered per the deal and another $900 million in free food, but contrary to a lot of what is put out there - that's a drop in the bucket compared to how the North was able to benefit from the relaxed financial interference by the US that allowed allies like Japan and South Korea to take advantage of cheap (slave) North Korean labor. Money also flowed through the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization. Contrary to the protests of Carlin, his oft repeated claim that money was never given to the North Korean regime is an obfuscation. Due to the free energy received along with the supporting materials and equipment (later confiscated by the North after the Bush administration acted to kill the program) combined with an influx of capital from our regional allies triggered by relaxed US relations, the North was saved complete economic ruin.

                An example of this is the Kaesong Industrial Complex. In the early 2000's it was alone was paying $90 million a year directly to the North Korean government for leases and taxes along with $8,480,000 million in monthly wages paid to North Korean workers - which were, of course, paid to the Party government for distribution. Open your palm and see what's there - that's how much those workers were keeping of those wages.

                So no, Clinton doesn't get any credit. Had he done nothing at all, the North would have swirled around the economic drain. You wouldn't have a bomb, because they would have had no capital investment to continue trying to build one - nor the technology that they lacked as of 1994 that they acquired as a direct result of Clinton's bumbling in an attempt to stave off a rising Republican midterm tide. They had a nuclear weapons program from the 1960's. Do you really believe it is a coincidence that they just happened to finally succeeded in 2006? What changed? Well, simply put it was the money to purchase the technology they lacked. In the case of the key components obtained via A.Q Khan through semi-official channels with Pakistan; the North produced and then transferred a number of No Dong 1 missiles in 1995 and 1996 to Pakistan in exchange for the technology and expertise to build the bomb. It also sold $2.7 billion dollars worth of these missiles to Iran starting in 1995. These missiles were only able to be produced because of the subsidies provided by the US and it's regional allies as a part of this deal.

                No deal, no money. No money, no bomb. Trump hamfistedly pointed to this which led to the media rushing to the defense of WJC and a flood of articles from the Post and Times providing cover for the deal. Like most things the truth of this is nuanced. While they can truthfully say we didn't "give them billions to build the bomb" like Trump incorrectly claimed, they can't really say it with a straight face. It's not really debatable that this deal allowed a 2018 nuclear North Korea. I'm not suggesting that they never would have gotten there without this deal - but were decades away before we handed them aid to get the short cut from Pakistan circa 1996. Even after getting all the technical information needed to succeed it still took them a decade before their first successful test. It's pretty clear cut - but it doesn't boil down well to a talking point or meme.

                For further reading:
                Nuclear Black Markets: Pakistan, A.Q. Khan and the Rise of Proliferation Networks

                Also, any of the numerous congressional reports from the period of 2003-2005. All of which will confirm that the number of about 1.4 billion per year in direct aid from this deal.
                 
                #191 5-Star Finger, Oct 5, 2018
                Last edited: Oct 5, 2018
                • gatorev12

                  gatorev12 Well-Known Member

                  Joined:
                  Aug 17, 2018
                  Messages:
                  660
                  Oxbucks:
                  $685
                  Ratings:
                  +687 / -49
                  Thanks for taking the time to write that up. Certainly does beg a rethink of conventional wisdom about the Clinton Agreement.

                  Only real quibble is that I can somewhat understand everyone extending a lifeline to North Korea in the early 90s because no one was prepared to deal with a potential failed state of 20M+ bordering China and Russia...both of whom had zero ability to deal with an influx of millions of starving and malnourished people; and neither South Korea or Japan were very keen on the prospect either.
                   
                • Detroitgator

                  Detroitgator General Factotum
                  Lifetime Member

                  Joined:
                  Jul 15, 2014
                  Messages:
                  12,205
                  Oxbucks:
                  $3,627
                  Ratings:
                  +10,209 / -32
                  So, you mean you need to rethink it.
                   
                • gatorev12

                  gatorev12 Well-Known Member

                  Joined:
                  Aug 17, 2018
                  Messages:
                  660
                  Oxbucks:
                  $685
                  Ratings:
                  +687 / -49
                  I wasn't exactly singing Clinton's praises earlier in this thread, now was I?

                  But that said--when you bring facts to a discussion and present your viewpoint in a respectful manner, I'll consider it in that vein. 5 star made compelling points without calling me a "Democrat" or "big govt apologist" etc. See how that works?
                   
                • Detroitgator

                  Detroitgator General Factotum
                  Lifetime Member

                  Joined:
                  Jul 15, 2014
                  Messages:
                  12,205
                  Oxbucks:
                  $3,627
                  Ratings:
                  +10,209 / -32
                  I called you neither. You generalize about others, a lot.
                   
                • Detroitgator

                  Detroitgator General Factotum
                  Lifetime Member

                  Joined:
                  Jul 15, 2014
                  Messages:
                  12,205
                  Oxbucks:
                  $3,627
                  Ratings:
                  +10,209 / -32
                  I forgot. President Obama did get Evelyn Salt out of DPRK in 2010, so there is that.
                   
                • gatorev12

                  gatorev12 Well-Known Member

                  Joined:
                  Aug 17, 2018
                  Messages:
                  660
                  Oxbucks:
                  $685
                  Ratings:
                  +687 / -49
                  I didn't say you used those exact words (other posters did); but don't sit here and deny your rebuttals didn't include choice words mixed in questioning my intelligence, among other things.
                   
                • Detroitgator

                  Detroitgator General Factotum
                  Lifetime Member

                  Joined:
                  Jul 15, 2014
                  Messages:
                  12,205
                  Oxbucks:
                  $3,627
                  Ratings:
                  +10,209 / -32
                  An I wrong, or did you say at some point that you went to law school?
                   
                • gatorev12

                  gatorev12 Well-Known Member

                  Joined:
                  Aug 17, 2018
                  Messages:
                  660
                  Oxbucks:
                  $685
                  Ratings:
                  +687 / -49
                  I did, yes. Used the GI Bill to cover part of the tuition.
                   
                • Tay Bang

                  Tay Bang I might have been mean to Byrd
                  Lifetime Member

                  Joined:
                  Jul 25, 2018
                  Messages:
                  2,146
                  Oxbucks:
                  $1,045
                  Ratings:
                  +2,341 / -114
                  Like you didn’t. ****ing lawyers.
                   

                Share This Page

                The Box

                Help

                You don't have the necessary permissions to use the chat.

                • About Us

                  Our community sprung up when the Gatorsports message board was shut down in the summer of 2014. We pride ourselves on offering Gator-biased, yet critical discussion among people of all different backgrounds. We are working every day to make sure our community is the best Gator message board you will find.
                • Like us on Facebook

                • Buy us a Zima!

                  The management works very hard to make sure the community is running the best software, best designs, and all the other bells and whistles. Care to buy us a non-alcoholic Zima? We'd really appreciate it! Just click the "Donate" tab at the top of the page.