even though it is entertaining watching you jokers pi$$ing on each others' shoes, anyone wasting his/her time arguing over the validity of a comedian's analysis of international diplomacy qualifies, in my books, as a fool.

never argue with a jackass - you can never raise his IQ and you will only lower your own...

Many faults?!? Understatement of the year.
You keep going on and on and on with your brainless parroting of an untrustworthy liar who made an unbelievable claim about Biden like morals matter to you, but when confronted with proof your choice has no morals at all and is actually a pedophile who acted on his urges according to his own words and a repeatedly convicted con man and charity fraud you say, "I support a man with many faults". Clearly morals, ethics, laws, honesty, loyalty, even basic humanity aren't concerns as long as you get to troll some liberals.

Got what done? Not walls. Not trade. Not diplomacy. Not the economy. Not jobs. Not reducing debt. Not national unification.
All I've seen are absolute failures on those promises and the creation of new disasters through incompetence.

Mail in vote failures are actually a symptom of Trump's appointee's direct interference in the post office's ability to deliver mail, removing 10% of national sorting capacity, concentrated in cities that need it most as I understand it, halting all overtime, and changing established delivery methods causing massive backlogs ansd slowdowns of all mail, not just ballots. It's a statistical certainty that veterans have died from not getting their medicine delivered, but you don't care about that either because he's not Hillary.

Odd that you somehow think the national inability to guarantee a free and fair election helps trump look capable of leadership....not sure how that's America being great, sounds more like we're becoming a shit hole country that can't even hold elections, and Trump seems more than happy to help it along instead of trying to fix the problem (although he is trying to "fix" the election by breaking it's processes and suppressing as many voters as possible).

It wouln't be funny even if you weren't working directly for Putin and against America, just sad that you would do his bidding for free.

Working with Russia in your official capacity as Secretary of State to create international treaties, even bad ones....that is not collusion, it's diplomacy.
Working with Russia to reform American policy before you're in office...that's subversive collusion, and admitted to by Trump's cabinet.

Who's colluding with Russia? Apparently at least Manafort while he ran the Trump campaign according to the indictment....oh, and Flynn who's eventually admitted (when his lies were proven false after the tapes surfaced) that he illegally made multiple policy change agreements in December with Russia contradicting the government's positions, like a promise to remove sanctions, which is a crime called subversion and could be/is treason.

Edit: Before you try to trot out the DNC partially paying for the 'Trump dossier' as some form of collusion, remember it was conceived and created by the RNC and only later sold to Clinton's camp after Trump took the nomination, and it's not even nearly as bad as what Jared thought he was going to buy directly from the Russian government in his meeting that he falsely claimed was about adoption until the email surfaced proving that was another lie.

To be fair, we tried pretty damn hard to stop big Kim from grabbing control in the first place. The price ended up being too high for us (America) then (during the Korean war), and the expected cost of forced regime change today is much higher, multiple millions of lives and rising constantly as lil' Kim's arsenal rapidly grows.
The multifaceted fiasco that is N Korea may prove unsolvable, but our current course has a predictable, unacceptable outcome.
I agree we need leaders with wisdom....also restraint, intelligence, diplomacy, and a high level of comprehension of the situation as seen from multiple viewpoints. Sadly I don't see those qualities exemplified by either of the men who count most in this situation.

Do you get your info from, faux or Trump?
I'm...wow...where to start?
"Neo-liberals" are anti war, so positive peaceful relations are what they're after, not illegal collusion and absolute capitulation to our (and our allies') detriment. The 'neoliberals' didn't even use the military to protect the Ukraine, even though we are bound to do so by treaties.
War profiteering companies are almost 100% owned and run by neocons, not liberals.

There is proof, publicly released proof. There is not yet a completed report submitted to congress, those take time to put together, verify, edit, recertify, sign off, and submit. 17 intelligence agencies have publicly stated they have plenty of 'proof', some hackers have gone on record as working on this project for the Russians at their direction, the methods and programs used have easily identified 'fingerprints' from previous Russian hacks.

The contents of the emails were completely innocuous, with absolutely no smoking gun. If you think differently, I think you've been duped by the fake news industry.
'No one cares' about the RNC emails because the Russians didn't release them, they weren't trying to hurt Trump, he's their dream president, a moron under their thumb that doesn't understand the idea of diplomacy, much less how to practice it. (That no one cares is totally not true, btw, I care...I even care that they were hacked, but I care far more that they were protected and helped repeatedly by a foreign nation they invited to illegally become involved in our election with the clearly stated intention of skewing our election for their benefit).
Sweet zombie Jesus, if Clinton had won after asking a national enemy to illicitly and illegally help her like Trump did, the right would be inconsolable and frothing at the mouth calling for revolution and blood.

@RFlagg

A disenfranchised person would say that threats or promises about what Trump or Hillary might do in power aren't as effective as they used to be. People who understand that lies are part of the new game aren't going to be surprised when the game reaches the lying phase. At this point, each party promises the world but soon the game will move on and they will do as they please.

Playing the game is giving your consent to what the person eventually does - and that IS scary to some people. I gave my consent to Tony Blair, and I consider him one of the key players in causing some of the most terrible British/worldwide problems, including the current problems with Islamic fundamentalism. Personally my line has been crossed and I'm not going to be convinced by a 'better than the other' option.

'Better than the other' is EXPECTATION MANAGEMENT. They have already set the terms of the debate; now there is no other option but to choose between these two things that are not good enough. There is no time left, our neck is in the noose and we're voting to tighten it an inch at a time for fear of it tightening all at once. Climate change needs attention NOW; poverty and suffering are happening in our communities NOW; diplomacy has to happen in the middle east because children and families are dying and it is happening NOW.

I think the world needs change or protest now, I suspect we only disagree on the time scale. I agree Hillary would be 'better' than Trump. All I'd say is 'better than the other' hasn't worked in 20+ years. We might already be too late.

Here's an article on the video from the Japan Times - http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/06/18/world/politics-diplomacy-world/big-japan-faux-trump-ad-video-goes-viral/#.V2d21oSrhBf

That article points out that the creator Mike Diva (Mike Dahlquist) is actually American, and also links to Chloe Doan's twitter, which is full of comments about her role as the J-Pop fan in the video - https://twitter.com/sushimonstuh

The only difference here seems to be a lack of ego. These guys aren't acting like they're constantly under threat of looking stupid, or need to maintain control via threat of physical violence. They're controlling the guy by letting him think he's in control, while everyone's still safe. Reflecting on what we see of the american police force online, it really makes them look like a one-note cannon when it comes to local civic diplomacy.

Short version: Fuchs is a hardliner in many regards. Like you say, his perspective on this matter stands seperate from the rest of the world (except this one particular country in central Europe), which is why I used to not pay too much attention to folks like him. Bad idea. As it turns out, lots of people support his view, many more than I ever thought possible, depressing as that may be.

The entire thing is a break with 70 years of post-war diplomacy, trying to become a part of Europe again. Adenauer (Brandt) received better treatment in Moscow (Warsaw) than Tsipras did in Brussels/Berlin. From a European Germany straight back to a German Europe in no time at all...

Edit: Habermas offers his take on this matter.

@Lawdeedaw

There's so much factually wrong here, I don't know where to begin. Let's start with this:

"That rape and mutilation has been going on for centuries but was significant in the Second Sino-Japanese War, a distinct war in and of itself."

Japan was in a state of almost complete isolation from the rest of the world between the years of 1633 and 1853. Even after the period of isolation ended, Japan was too busy for decades industrializing to be rampaging through China, as you suggest.

Japan DID eventually get involved in Chinese politics and in fact went to war with them in the First Sino-Japanese War... in 1894. There are no reports of atrocities committed by the Japanese military during this conflict. In fact, quite the opposite, Japan would release Chinese prisoners of war once they promised not to take up arms against Japan again.

The subjugation of Taiwan (which was ceded to Japan at the end of the first Sino-Japanese War but resisted Japanese rule) is a different story. However, accounts of what exactly happened are sketchy and most of the information we have is anecdotal. What can be gleaned from these anecdotes is that the Formasians put up a fierce guerrilla resistance campaign and that the Japanese tortured and killed anyone suspected of aiding the resistance. Still, it doesn't appear to have been on the same scale as the massacres which occurred during the Rape of Nanking.

As you mentioned, some of the most awful abuses were done during the Second Sino-Japanese War between 1937 and 1945 (the Rape of nanking occurred during this war). The abuse ended Japan's defeat in WWII.

What you can see here by doing the math, is that Japan's military abuses in China lasted a grand total of 50 years--from the subjugation of Formosa (Taiwan) to the end of World War 2--not "centuries."

Next, let's talk about misrepresentation. You seem to be implying that Japanese textbooks don't say that Japan is the aggressor in WW2 (or previous conflicts). As I pointed out in my last post, that is flat-out wrong. There is ONE textbook that was approved for use that whitewashes the history but that book has been ignored an not used by the vast majority of schools in Japan.

If you want to criticize Japanese textbooks, you could criticize them on the grounds that though they mention the terrible things that Japanese forces did, they don't go into a whole lot of detail. See this article for more information.

As far as Abe goes, what exactly has he said that is so terrible? Yes, he hangs out with revisionists. Yes, he has expressed his opinion that Japan should stop apologizing for WWII and start looking to the future instead of the past. Yes, he has said that the issue of "comfort women" should be re-examined in light of claims that some of evidence of their existence was fabricated. But these are not really radical statements by any means. And many people and newspapers do strongly and openly disagree with his statements, so this idea that Japanese people don't challenge him is completely wrong as well.

Yasukuni is a total clusterfuck of a situation. It is a shrine to ALL of Japan's war dead. This includes war criminals, but it also includes regular soldiers just doing their duty. In terms of Shinto beliefs, all of their souls now reside there. Basically, if you want to pay your respects to someone who died in military service in Japan, you have to go there to "see them."

Abe is a total dumbass (and the press let him know it) for going there because he knows already how China and Korea will perceive it, but on the other hand his going there does not mean in any way that he reveres the war criminals who are interred there. I have no idea what his personal views are but publically he has stated that he and his wife go there to remind themselves about the terrible toll war had on Japan the last time Japan engaged in it.

Finally, as for the link you provided, it was to a year-old opinion piece that lacks context. Abe made that statement at a time when it was revealed that some of the evidence of the existence of comfort women in Japan had been faked. It was later decided that the apology would not be changed. In fact, The Japan Times is reporting that it is likely that Abe will mention that "comfort women" had their human rights violated by Japan in his upcoming address on the end of WWII, so the comparison of him to Ahmadinejad is a bit far-fetched.

Firm agnostic here too. The most sane ideology to have today. Tomorrow it might be something else but i feel agnostics are the only ones to use diplomacy between godders and no-godders. Both groups can never understand each other, agnostics understand them both.

To anyone saying that agnosticism is simply just indecisiveness, and that is both sides: it is not. We simply don't think it's an issue you need to be on one side or the other. That's what you do. We accept both views and navigate between them trying to find what is real and what is not, since both sides try to manipulate true facts all the time according to your needs. We don't do that. If something, agnosticism is the true scientific approach; trying to find out what is true without any predisposition or beliefs...

It's ONLY that both sides are now so far apart that anything that contradicts them, is totally blasphemous/unscientific. There is no such thing as true agnosticism. There are people who are closer to believing in god and further away and no one cares how you think. People who belong to either of the marginal camps seems like idiots to me who are never going to be coaxed in either way; the more evidence you put on the table for one argument, you will oppose it even more. Its a futile discussion. We got much bigger problems to solve than if there's a god.

At the moment, there are more evidence pointing that there is no god. Nothing has been proven as a fact in either way. There would be same amount of violence with or without religion, the reasons would change superficially but nothing would change or will change if you abolish or religion. It takes about 10 years that new batch of believers arrive even if you eradicated all religion and all history: if you wipe people minds now, tomorrow someone believes in angels or goblins.. Or dragons.. It's inbuilt survival mechanism: you don't get it all, there must be a bigger plan etc.. it's human nature, not a part of our society. The feeling the presence of God is scientifically proven to be just a short circuit in our brain.. That alone makes it certain that belief in supernatural will go on.

Diplomacy is the only real solution.

But won't those women "wussify" the terrorists? Which decreases the threat?

Which proves your point -- feminists are a national security issue for the Islamic terrorists, too!

My god, we might be forced into more diplomacy, the wussiest of all wussy responses!

I'd still like to understand how you believe diplomacy to be a more workable solution. If diplomacy is to be the solution to extremism in Pakistan, I presume you look to the moderate leaders in Pakistan for the answers? When I go through the list of such leaders, a disturbing trend is observable.

Shahbaz Bhatti was an elected member of the National Assembly lobbying for repealing Pakistan's death penalty for blasphemy. He was assassinated on March 2, 2011.

Salman Taseer was a governor in Pakistan, lobbying for repealing Pakistan's death penalty for blasphemy. He was assassinated by one of his own bodyguards on January 4, 2011.

Benazir Bhutto, the nations first female Prime Minister had returned after being chased off by the nations military to run in the 2008 elections. She was assassinated on December 27, 2007.

This list is just highlights, countless more moderate leaders keep ending up dead in Pakistan. Meanwhile, elected figures like those from parties like the JUI-F survive, and give speeches in Pakistan's National Assembly declaring Osama Bin Laden an Islamic hero, and the assassins that killed those in the prior list as heroes as well.

I don't mean to be rude about it, but I just don't understand why you believe that diplomacy alone can be expected to succeed in such circumstances?

@enoch,

I think our gap is from very disparate world views and taking for granted we'll each work out for ourselves more than we do.

I used to really hang onto the saying that war is the ultimate failure of democracy. It resonated with me, and it seems to me that it's very much were you are coming from? Looking at history more and more though, I've come to see that saying is more the way we would wish our world to be, and not how it really is. Instead I see our history telling out the truth that diplomacy is the ultimate goal of war.

Peace is a fleeting and pretty much impossible state of existence for us it seems. The only time peace ever lasts is when war and conquest simply won't lead to greater gains than it. Time and time and time again history has shown that the only time war and violence weren't followed was when the gains from it were not worth the cost. How many times in history did an invading nation turn back because the other side stood back and refused to fight back? It just doesn't happen, get enough people united and they will use whatever method is to their greatest advantage, and all too often that is violence.

In Pakistan the taliban are making huge gains through violent repression of everyone that opposes them. It is extremely effective because those living in the region are unable to fight back for lack of unity and numbers. The Pakistani military meanwhile is unwilling to fight back, because they have more to gain by letting the taliban kill Pakistani civilians while the elected government is nominally 'in power'. Negotiation with the Taliban is impossible to my eyes unless and until their use of violence no longer benefits them. The fastest and surest way of accomplishing that is meeting them with that same force and ensuring they lose more than they gain with each attack.

It's a brutal, but also very simple assessment I think. It also leads to drone attacks being the one method of fighting back directly at them that leaves the least number of collateral casualties in it's wake. It takes more than a year for drones to kill as many people as the Taliban do in a month. Of those killed by drones, from 50-90%(depending who's counts you believe) are identifialy Taliban militants and leaders. That includes taking out the Taliban's top leader twice in the last 5 years with them, and if you include American actions in Pakistan in general, it nets Bin Laden as well.

I'd urge you not to take that as a western or American centric goal or objective. The thousands killed each month I list as justification and wanting protection for are nearly 100% Pakistani Muslims.