Straight Dope Message Board

Straight Dope Message Board (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php)
-   Elections (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=34)
-   -   North Korea suspending missile testing and closing nuclear site; Trump the statesman? (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=853430)

HurricaneDitka 04-20-2018 06:09 PM

North Korea suspending missile testing and closing nuclear site; Trump the statesman?
 
Quote:

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un announced Friday that his country will be suspending missile testing and closing a nuclear test site, several reports said.

"From April 21, North Korea will stop nuclear tests and launches of intercontinental ballistic missiles," the Korean Central News Agency said, according to Yonhap News. "The North will shut down a nuclear test site in the country's northern side to prove the vow to suspend nuclear test."
source

I'm rather pleasantly surprised with the progress Trump has made on the North Korean front. This appears, at least to me, to be the most significant progress towards denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula that has made in the last couple of decades. Am I missing something here, or is this good news?

Moriarty 04-20-2018 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka
Am I missing something here, or is this good news?

It is good news, if it actually takes hold. But we've tried it before:

Carter and North Korea: the 1994 Treaty Halting North Korea’s Development of Nuclear Weapons

simster 04-20-2018 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka (Post 20915248)
source

I'm rather pleasantly surprised with the progress Trump has made on the North Korean front. This appears, at least to me, to be the most significant progress towards denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula that has made in the last couple of decades. Am I missing something here, or is this good news?

Not even close - all they are saying is 'now that we have proven our nuclear and ICMB capabilites, we no loinger need to "test them".

Quote:

Originally Posted by https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/20/asia/north-korea-closes-nuclear-site/index.html
Kim said Saturday that "under the proven condition of complete nuclear weapons, we no longer need any nuclear tests, mid-range and intercontinental ballistic rocket tests, and that the nuclear test site in northern area has also completed its mission," as quoted by KCNA.

While a step - its nowhere close to allowing inspectors in or dropping the nuclear ambitions on whole - just saying "we dont need to test".

Musicat 04-20-2018 06:23 PM

If Kim thinks he can get more political mileage from starting missile testing, he will start it. If he thinks he will get more from stopping it, he will stop it. Trump may be only a pawn in the game of life.

HurricaneDitka 04-20-2018 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simster (Post 20915272)
Not even close ...

I understand that it's not complete denuclearization, or even all that close yet, but was your "not even close" directed at my understanding that "This appears... to be the most significant progress"? Is there some other happening that you'd point to as being more significant progress than this?

Smapti 04-20-2018 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka (Post 20915248)
I'm rather pleasantly surprised with the progress Trump has made on the North Korean front.

What exactly do you think Trump did that caused this?

Stranger On A Train 04-20-2018 06:35 PM

This has everything to do with China providing economic subsidies to North Korea in exchange for the Kim regime cooling their heels on their nuclear ICBM program, and nothing to do with Trump’s ham-fisted “statesmanship” or Twitter war with Jong-un worthy of a couple of teenage rap star ‘frenemies’. Given the bumbling of the Trump Administration in nearly every interaction with both allies and adversaries, ascribing any positive outcome to Trump is like observing that the clock has to be at 12 at some time twice in a day.

Stranger

Icarus 04-20-2018 06:36 PM

They have achieved their goals, which is "a seat at the table". So, in a sense, we are playing into their hands, if that is your perspective. If news reports are accurate, Trump plans on meeting with Kim Jong-un, which in the old view of these type of things, elevates him on the world stage.

What ever happened to "we don't negotiate with terrorists"?

ganthet 04-20-2018 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka (Post 20915248)
I'm rather pleasantly surprised with the progress Trump has made on the North Korean front. This appears, at least to me, to be the most significant progress towards denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula that has made in the last couple of decades. Am I missing something here, or is this good news?

Just last month, Trump's carefully selected national security advisor John Bolton stated that North Korea can never be trusted, is on the verge of successfully miniaturizing its nuclear warheads while simultaneously working out the final issues with its proto-ICBMs, and is using the prospect of direct talks with the South Korea president and Trump as smoke-and-mirror stalling tactics to give the regime more time to finish its weapons development.

Back in September 2017, Bolton said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Bolton
Anybody who thinks more diplomacy with North Korea, more sanctions, whether against North Korea, or an effort to apply sanctions against China, is just giving North Korea more time to increase its nuclear arsenal... and put us, South Korea, and Japan in more jeopardy.

We have fooled around with North Korea for 25 years, and fooling around some more is just going to make matters worse.

The North Korean regime craves international respect and acceptance. Trump is giving up a major carrot by agreeing to meet with Kim with no preconditions and the steady drip of stories about NK agreeing to take their demand that American troops leave South Korea in any kind of deal and now this is setting NK up to appear "reasonable" and "peace-interested" when talks inevitably fail. Trump is too ignorant and self-obsessed to be much of a good negotiator and since the primary and only real goal of NK is regime preservation, giving up nukes is never realistic since it not only leaves them vulnerable militarily but removes the domestic justification for NK's repressiveness, poverty, and the need for juche as compared to South Korea.

HurricaneDitka 04-20-2018 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Icarus (Post 20915305)
... What ever happened to "we don't negotiate with terrorists"?

That's always been something other than an ironclad rule. North Korea was added the the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism in 1988. Despite that, Jimmy Carter led an effort to reach an agreement with the North Koreans during the Clinton administration. GWB actually removed North Korea from the list in 2008, in an effort to assist ongoing negotiations with the regime. Trump had them added back to the list last year.

Troy McClure 04-20-2018 06:57 PM

What are the odds that the test site they are so magnanimously closing is this one?

http://time.com/4981037/north-korea-...ear-test-site/

DSeid 04-20-2018 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka (Post 20915248)
...This appears, at least to me, to be the most significant progress towards denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula that has made in the last couple of decades. ...

This appears to be a fairly accurate statement - it is tied. There has been no progress made towards denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula in the last couple of decades and this is also no progress.

But I'll take engaging in talks and empty gestures that are acknowledged with empty words over mutual threats and twitter rants over who has the larger ... button.

DinoR 04-20-2018 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka (Post 20915248)
This appears, at least to me, to be the most significant progress towards denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula that has made in the last couple of decades. Am I missing something here, or is this good news?

This is nowhere close to the most significant progress.

One they lie. They've previously abandoned pursuit of nuclear weapons in international agreements. If true those statements would have been far more significant progression. They, obviously, didn't follow through. One of the old saws of disarmament is "Trust but verify." Previous behavior makes trust problematic. There's no announcement about them allowing verification procedures.

This only abandons a tiny chunk of their nuclear enterprise. They said nothing about continuing to build and deploy nuclear weapons based on the lessons learned from the recent period of heavy testing. They also didn't abandon continued research and development to support their nuclear enterprise. They only claim to be abandoning ballistic missile launches and live nuclear warhead tests along with one test site. That's it.

They share/sell ballistic technology with other countries. One of those is Iran. Iran's been conducting ballistic missile tests recently. Sharing technology with Iran that then gets test launched is one way to still get live fire test results at this point.

This looks a lot like a press release designed to influence international public opinion before upcoming negotiations.

HurricaneDitka 04-20-2018 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DinoR (Post 20915384)
This is nowhere close to the most significant progress. ...

So what was "the most significant progress"?

simster 04-20-2018 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka (Post 20915282)
I understand that it's not complete denuclearization, or even all that close yet, but was your "not even close" directed at my understanding that "This appears... to be the most significant progress"? Is there some other happening that you'd point to as being more significant progress than this?

If you read the rest of the sentence - you'd be able to understand why its 'not even close'.

This is nothing more than saying "we've proven we have them, we're satisfied with our ability to make and launch as we see fit, we don't need to test them". Closing a test facility on that basis is actually more of a bold statement of "and now we'll just use them".

It sounds good on the surface - but underneath, its really more of a threat.

When was the last time US actively tested nuclear weapons ? 1992 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._United_States - would saying we're closing our testing facilities have shit to do with our abiltiy to produce and use the weapons?

asahi 04-20-2018 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka (Post 20915248)
source

I'm rather pleasantly surprised with the progress Trump has made on the North Korean front. This appears, at least to me, to be the most significant progress towards denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula that has made in the last couple of decades. Am I missing something here, or is this good news?

I'm not entirely pissing on Trump's diplomacy, as I am one of the few progressives who will acknowledge that Hillary Clinton's status quo diplomacy would have been unfruitful (putting it mildly). But let's just wait until we get past the actual meeting itself before we start praising his accomplishments.

DinoR 04-20-2018 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka (Post 20915395)
So what was "the most significant progress"?

They've entered multiparty agreements to completely abandon their program before. They didn't actually do it. Spending some time at least trying to give the appearance of not developing nukes had a more practical effect than a limited claim about restricting testing.

asahi 04-21-2018 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka (Post 20915248)
I'm rather pleasantly surprised with the progress Trump has made on the North Korean front. This appears, at least to me, to be the most significant progress towards denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula that has made in the last couple of decades. Am I missing something here, or is this good news?

Going back to this post, I'd just like to point out that it's the most significant progress toward denuclearization -- after they have actually finished the process of demonstrating substantial nuclear capabilities.

I suspect that what Kim is saying is:

"Look, the fact is, we've got missiles, and we've got nuclear weapons. I know that, and more importantly, you know that. We could make more and more if we want and you would pay one hell of a price for trying to stop us. But the truth is, we're not really interested in going that route. This being enemies of the world shit is getting kinda old. Instead, we'd rather you just stop putting sanctions on us, as they threaten my ability to govern over the long term. We want you to stop threatening our regime's future through sanctions and political isolation; you guys want us to stop building nukes and shooting missiles over Japan. So we'll cut you a deal. You end sanctions and maybe even move your military threat further away from us, and we'll end nuclear and missile testing, and we might even be somewhat normal. I'll look like a hero for normalizing my country and perhaps even possibly improving the economy and welfare of my people, and you'll actually look like a legitimate global deal maker and possibly get reelected. So whaddya say, Orange Yankee, deal or no deal?

Trump might actually be tempted to take it. I'm not sure John Bolton would, though. This is where it would get interesting because Bolton represents a significant faction within the old "deep state," which is that the United States doesn't compromise power in exchange for peace. FWIW, I think Hillary Clinton somewhat had a worldview that was not too dissimilar. She's probably more open to traditional diplomacy than the Walrus (Bolton), but that traditional diplomacy would mean North Korea making concessions first before actually holding up our end of the bargain. Kim's not interested in that. His grandfather/father tried that with Bill Clinton and he got nowhere when Republicans pulled funding for the nuclear deal in the 1990s.

Blank Slate 04-21-2018 06:41 AM

Last year, interstellar object 'Oumuamua was observed passing through our solar system. How about that Trump as leader of the free world, eh?

RTFirefly 04-21-2018 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka (Post 20915248)
source

I'm rather pleasantly surprised with the progress Trump has made on the North Korean front. This appears, at least to me, to be the most significant progress towards denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula that has made in the last couple of decades. Am I missing something here, or is this good news?

"in the last couple of decades"??

Dude, no progress could have been made on denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula two decades ago, because it was still denuclearized, thanks to the Clinton-era Agreed Framework. Which Republicans opposed from the get-go because it was 'appeasement.' And our new National Security Adviser had a hand in killing it during the Bush years. And so by the middle of the '00s, NK was finally a nuclear power.

Any progress made by Republicans to address the problem of NK's nukes is at best an attempt to undo the damage they did in enabling those nukes in the first place. I wish them well, but they don't deserve our plaudits.

penultima thule 04-21-2018 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Troy McClure (Post 20915339)
What are the odds that the test site they are so magnanimously closing is this one?

http://time.com/4981037/north-korea-...ear-test-site/

Absolutely 100%

North Korea haven't run a nuclear test or launched ICBMs for several months.
Now unilateralists seem to be awarding them brownie points for saying they'll do what they have already done.

Why they stopped? Dunno. Maybe they think they don't need further tests or they are running short of resources. They are certainly down one launch site.
Whether/when they plan to resume is outside my ken but not getting what they want (which is the disarming of South Korea before they consider any disarmament of North Korea) in any upcoming talks is pretty likely trigger point.

RTFirefly 04-21-2018 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Icarus (Post 20915305)
They have achieved their goals, which is "a seat at the table". So, in a sense, we are playing into their hands, if that is your perspective. If news reports are accurate, Trump plans on meeting with Kim Jong-un, which in the old view of these type of things, elevates him on the world stage.

And Rush Limbaugh is selling this as a yuuuuge accomplishment on the part of Trump, that none of his predecessors were able to pull off.

Hard to tell whether Limbaugh is being dishonest or just stupid, isn't it? As you imply, any one of Trump's recent predecessors could have met with whichever Kim was the NK dictator at the time, because a one-on-one meeting with the POTUS would have been a big boost of international status for Kim.

Ravenman 04-21-2018 07:38 AM

If I were a Republican, I would point out that North Korea hasn’t done a bunch of other things, like close its concentration camps, stop all arms trade, etc and declare this development as “the worst deal in history, and I know deals.”

dropzone 04-21-2018 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTFirefly (Post 20915948)
Hard to tell whether Limbaugh is being dishonest or just stupid, isn't it?

Can't he be both, like the late Antonin Scalia?

Er, wrong forum for that. Gratuitous Simpsons quotes belong elsewhere. How about I say that I admire how Li'l Kim turned the destruction of his test site into a grand gesture of conciliation?

Morgenstern 04-21-2018 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka (Post 20915248)
...
I'm rather pleasantly surprised with the progress Trump has made on the North Korean front. ...

A few things.

1. Never believe anything 'lil Kim says.
2. Never believe anything the old groper says.
3. Never accept the administration's take on this.

I'm telling you this for your own good.

Johnny Ace 04-21-2018 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morgenstern (Post 20916350)
A few things.

1. Never believe anything 'lil Kim says.
2. Never believe anything the old groper says.
3. Never accept the administration's take on this.

I'm telling you this for your own good.

Pissin' in the wind...

penultima thule 04-21-2018 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka (Post 20915248)
I'm rather pleasantly surprised with the progress Trump has made on the North Korean front. This appears, at least to me, to be the most significant progress towards denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula that has made in the last couple of decades.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morgenstern (Post 20916350)
A few things.

1. Never believe anything 'lil Kim says.
2. Never believe anything the old groper says.
3. Never accept the administration's take on this.

I'm telling you this for your own good.

And I thank you, not that you need to convince me.

What would be really helpful if you assist in convincing that 40% of the US happily lapping this DRT=MAGA stuff up with a soup ladle.

I think they'd agree with your dot points, except you need to change where it says 'lil Kim for Clinton.

asahi 04-21-2018 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by penultima thule (Post 20915939)
North Korea haven't run a nuclear test or launched ICBMs for several months.
Now unilateralists seem to be awarding them brownie points for saying they'll do what they have already done.

Why they stopped? Dunno. Maybe they think they don't need further tests or they are running short of resources. They are certainly down one launch site.
Whether/when they plan to resume is outside my ken but not getting what they want (which is the disarming of South Korea before they consider any disarmament of North Korea) in any upcoming talks is pretty likely trigger point.

Their tests and belligerence tends to slow down during harvest season. I guess they're never quite sure if the famines will be so extreme that even their military deserts them.

LAZombie 04-21-2018 10:09 PM

The real question is when will Trump receive his Nobel Peace prize?

Obama got one for doing nothing. I had to Google it and it was very vague.

penultima thule 04-21-2018 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asahi (Post 20916902)
Their tests and belligerence tends to slow down during harvest season.

That'd make sense.
When talking about resources I forgot that for DPRNK food is too frequently limiting.

Johnny Ace 04-22-2018 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAZombie (Post 20916930)
The real question is when will Trump receive his Nobel Peace prize?

Obama got one for doing nothing. I had to Google it and it was very vague.

Trump will win a Peace Prize when you become a Democrat.

Piece Prize, maybe.

elucidator 04-22-2018 03:03 AM

Shit, if Henry Kissinger can win the Nobel Peace Price, who can't? Mengele can win for Medicine.

chappachula 04-22-2018 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elucidator (Post 20917126)
Shit, if Henry Kissinger can win the Nobel Peace Price, who can't? Mengele can win for Medicine.

Hey, Kissinger actually worked pretty hard for years before wining his Peace Prize*.
Obama won his just by sleeping in the White House for a couple months.






*and I assume it was unintentional, but your typopun ("peace PriCe") is pretty darn good :) )

Blank Slate 04-22-2018 08:28 AM

Obama didn't "win" the Nobel, it was awarded to him by people who didn't realize that he was a status quo centrist.

It's true that the Nobel committee doesn't reward fascists and plutocrats, so Donny Boy is never going to get one. But so what? Let the Heritage Foundation or some other right wing institution come up with an award.

Morgenstern 04-22-2018 08:47 AM

Anyone notice the latest pictures of lil' Kim? He's now wearing Western style business suits and ties. Trump Tower, Pyongyang can't be far behind.

Vinyl Turnip 04-22-2018 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morgenstern (Post 20917267)
Anyone notice the latest pictures of lil' Kim? He's now wearing Western style business suits and ties.

I haven't, but he does seem like someone who could rock a leather vest and bolo tie.

Morgenstern 04-22-2018 10:33 AM

Here VT, the story behind it. :)


http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/east-a...im-look-banker

The Tooth 04-22-2018 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blank Slate (Post 20917249)
Obama didn't "win" the Nobel, it was awarded to him by people who didn't realize that he was a status quo centrist.

It's true that the Nobel committee doesn't reward fascists and plutocrats, so Donny Boy is never going to get one. But so what? Let the Heritage Foundation or some other right wing institution come up with an award.

Maybe Donnie Half-scoop can make him a "World's Greatest Dad" mug for Father's Day.

Silver lining 04-22-2018 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka (Post 20915248)
source

I'm rather pleasantly surprised with the progress Trump has made on the North Korean front. This appears, at least to me, to be the most significant progress towards denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula that has made in the last couple of decades. Am I missing something here, or is this good news?

It can be viewed as nothing but good news. You might even see the President and Mr. Kim on one of Trump's golf courses.

Anytime a isolations dictator agrees to suspend nuclear missile testing and join the rest of the world, that's a good thing.

bobot 04-22-2018 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silver lining (Post 20917497)
... and join the rest of the world, ...

I hope you aren't holding your breath.

running coach 04-22-2018 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silver lining (Post 20917497)
It can be viewed as nothing but good news. You might even see the President and Mr. Kim on one of Trump's golf courses.

Anytime a isolations dictator agrees to suspend nuclear missile testing and join the rest of the world, that's a good thing.

Show us where it says they'll stop making nuclear missiles

Don't forget, suspend isn't necessarily permanent.

CaptMurdock 04-23-2018 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by running coach (Post 20917505)
Show us where it says they'll stop making nuclear missiles

Don't forget, suspend isn't necessarily permanent.



Isn't that about the language used in the Iran deal? The same one Repubs excoriated Obama for?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

BobLibDem 04-23-2018 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka (Post 20915248)
Trump the statesman?

This appears to be in English but the words taken together are gibberish.

Kim gave up nothing. Why continue to test bombs that you know work? They aren't cheap so why reduce your arsenal by one just to prove what you already know?

A real president would not have agreed to meet with Kim until all foreign nationals held by NK have been released. The real danger with this summit is what Dumb Donald will agree to. Will he trade away a cow for a handful of magic beans? Will he say that NK can have all the missiles and bombs it wants as long as none can reach any of his properties? Will the dumb ass let himself get videotaped while having a pee party with the best hookers in North Korea? Negotiations with hostile parties should be undertaken with the best diplomats the country has to offer, not the dullest knife in the drawer.

Ravenman 04-23-2018 08:03 AM

Setting aside any snark: my suspicion here is that North Korea went on a crash program to test missiles like mad over the last couple years, along with an occasional nuclear test, in order to obtain what could be considered the lowest level of credible nuclear deterrent. Yes, they haven’t tested a full up system under realistic conditions. But it seems they probably have the building blocks for a nuclear deterrent, even if they haven’t all been integrated.

I think it was simply a matter of time before North Korea tried to use this as a bargaining chip in some kind of political maneuver. Contrast this to Iran, which was engaging in a whole lot of enrichment with very little else apparent in terms of weapons development. The North Koreans want the bomb badly, the Iranians have not had that level of commitment (as far as we know).

The issue I keep thinking about is whether North Korea was brought to the table by sanctions. I don’t see anything to make me believe that sanctions are threatening the existence of the North Korean state. But nuclear weapons are intended to be a guarantee of the North Korean state (for different reasons). Again, this is very different than Iran, IMHO.

So to the extent that one might imply that diplomatic pressure brought North Korea to the state.... I’m not so sure. Maybe Xi managed to get KJU to commit to something, but I’m inclined to think that North Korea was simply ready to try to cut a deal.

Of course, I cannot see that there’s a basis for a deal here, but that doesn’t mean that we ought not follow up on it. Jaw jaw, war war and all that.

Bryan Ekers 04-23-2018 10:35 AM

It's inevitable that Trump will have some successes, but it's way too early to say if this is one. To get the meeting, I don't doubt Kim would have agreed to (or at least promised to agree to) a lot of things. A short-term suspension of testing is a cheap, possibly even money-saving way to make the meeting more likely.

We're not likely to see signs of any lasting impact for several months at least, barring something dramatic happening during the meeting itself, i.e. it takes place not in North Korea and while Kim is out of the country, a faction murders his entire family and declares a coup.

Morgenstern 04-23-2018 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers (Post 20919109)
It's inevitable that Trump will have some successes, but it's way too early to say if this is one. ....


In the sense that even a blind squirrel stumbles upon a nut occasionally.

What really happened. Kim goes to China. China tells Kim to go along with hamster hands, then do whatever you like when he's not looking. Hamster hands tweets that Kim is a better friend to the US than Putin. Kim no longer has nuclear missiles, but his space exploration program has become very active as he tests his missiles putting rocks into orbit. Of course, his nukes are still in production.

Little Nemo 04-23-2018 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTFirefly (Post 20915933)
Any progress made by Republicans to address the problem of NK's nukes is at best an attempt to undo the damage they did in enabling those nukes in the first place. I wish them well, but they don't deserve our plaudits.

Yes, right now the goal that Trump is seeking (and implausibly claiming he's already achieved) is to restore the situation that existed during the Clinton administration.

And I think Trump will fail to actually achieve his goal. North Korea isn't going to give up its nuclear weapons. Trump, however, will invent a new definition for "denuclearization" and claim he won.

Bryan Ekers 04-23-2018 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Nemo (Post 20919319)
Yes, right now the goal that Trump is seeking (and implausibly claiming he's already achieved) is to restore the situation that existed during the Clinton administration.

And I think Trump will fail to actually achieve his goal. North Korea isn't going to give up its nuclear weapons. Trump, however, will invent a new definition for "denuclearization" and claim he won.

The most likely outcome I can see from Trump is that after the summit, he declares that Kim is now his friend, that they've come to a mutual understanding and respect, and that's it, mission accomplished, where's my Peace Prize? Japan and South Korea will be rather less than impressed. Kim might hold off on weapons tests for a while and will tell the North Koreans about the massive victory he won over America who was forced to send their president to beg and scrape in fear of North Korean power.

RTFirefly 04-23-2018 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptMurdock (Post 20918482)
Isn't that about the language used in the Iran deal? The same one Repubs excoriated Obama for?

Sorry, no comparison. What the Repubs excoriated Obama for was a program that's much more rigorous than anything Trump's likely to get out of Kim:

1) Iran doesn't have any nuclear weapons.
2) They've agreed to not refine uranium beyond a given level of purity that's well short of the level where it would work in a nuclear warhead.
3) They've agreed to a rigorous program of inspections of their nuclear facilities.
4) Those inspections are already ongoing.

The language you're referring to is where NK has agreed to:

0) Suspend nuclear missile testing.

They still have nukes and aren't giving them up, they haven't agreed to cease refining uranium to bomb-grade levels, they haven't agreed to inspections.

Little Nemo 04-23-2018 01:41 PM

North Korea has built its nuclear weapons program up the point where it no longer needs to run tests.

Trump has done nothing except accept this situation and is now offering North Korea some official recognition.

Trump will declare he has achieved a great victory. His followers will believe everything he tells them. The rest of us will be relieved that Trump did nothing because Trump doing nothing is generally less dangerous than Trump trying to do something.

Trump will whine.

tim314 04-23-2018 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAZombie (Post 20916930)
The real question is when will Trump receive his Nobel Peace prize?

Obama got one for doing nothing. I had to Google it and it was very vague.

Obama got one for not being George W. Bush. Which, even as a liberal Obama voter, I found absurd.

I could almost get behind a Nobel Prize for a U.S. president being not Trump, though. ;)

tim314 04-23-2018 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train (Post 20915304)
This has everything to do with China providing economic subsidies to North Korea in exchange for the Kim regime cooling their heels on their nuclear ICBM program

Can you point to some coverage of China's role in bringing about this change? (I'm not suggesting you're wrong, just that I haven't seen anything on it, and would be interested.)

Little Nemo 04-23-2018 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tim314 (Post 20919709)
I could almost get behind a Nobel Prize for a U.S. president being not Trump, though. ;)

If he could start right away, I'd throw in a Pulitzer, a full EGOT, and a Superbowl ring.

Tired and Cranky 04-23-2018 04:17 PM

It might be good news if Kim actually stopped developing nuclear bombs and ICBMs but instead, we have only a promise that he will do so. Kim has made these types of promises before. They are meaningless. Kim is less trustworthy than a used car salesman, or, dare I say it, a Trump.

A real accomplishment might be if Kim actually denuclearized. Trump has announced that Kim has denuclearized but that's not true. I don't know if Trump is too stupid to understand the difference between Kim's promise and denuclearization or if Trump is just lying about the promise's value to a credulous Republican base grasping for any semblance of a justification for their continued support of Trump.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tim314 (Post 20919709)
Obama got one for not being George W. Bush. Which, even as a liberal Obama voter, I found absurd.

I agree completely.

elucidator 04-23-2018 04:23 PM

So did Obama, by all accounts, but what was he going to do? If Margot Robbie publicly declared her undying passion for me, I would be embarrassed, but refuse? Oh, hell, no!

Johnny Ace 04-23-2018 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elucidator (Post 20919847)
If Margot Robbie publicly declared her undying passion for me, I would be embarrassed, but refuse? Oh, hell, no!

Woof. :)

Bryan Ekers 04-23-2018 05:18 PM

Sharp knees. Would not bang.

Evil Economist 04-23-2018 11:08 PM

According to my news feed, the WH has been unable to provide any evidence that NK has agreed to denuclearization:
White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders on Monday walked back President Donald Trump’s claim the previous day that North Korea had “agreed to denuclearization” ahead of a planned meeting between Trump and North Korean ruler Kim Jong Un.
Not even Trump could be this fucking stupid, right?

asahi 04-24-2018 05:20 AM

Part of these negotiations will depend on the definition of "denuclearization", what this term means to North Korea and to the United States.

Why would North Korea go through all of the trouble to develop a credible nuclear missile threat just to destroy them all? It doesn't logically make sense. There's no conceivable avenue for the actual removal of nuclear weapons. However, having even a handful of nuclear missiles means that North Korea is officially a member of the nuclear club and has to be treated with a certain degree of respect.

But more than that, it also gives North Korea leverage. On one hand, they can agree not to take the threat further and behave in a more stable and cooperative manner in exchange for some concessions, or if the US and allies insist on removing nukes first and keeping sanctions in place, they can continue increasing the level of danger. The choice is Trump's.

penultima thule 04-24-2018 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asahi (Post 20920690)
There's no conceivable avenue for the actual removal of nuclear weapons.

No peaceful avenue for their actual removal anyway.

Quartz 04-24-2018 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka (Post 20915248)
Am I missing something here, or is this good news?

Do you believe them? Even if NK is telling the truth, they can resume at a moment's notice. And by getting talks with POTUS - even if it is Trump - NK has scored a significant diplomatic victory.

Only time will tell.

HurricaneDitka 04-24-2018 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quartz (Post 20920755)
Do you believe them? ...

Yeah, nuke and missile tests are easy to detect, so I suspect they actually are telling the truth about suspending them, at least for now. Obviously that's only one modest step in a process that the USA hopes will eventually lead to complete denuclearization, but it does appear to be a step in the right direction.

RTFirefly 04-24-2018 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evil Economist (Post 20920446)
Not even Trump could be this fucking stupid, right?

Josh Marshall came up with "Trump's Razor" back in the summer of 2016:
Quote:

According to Trump’s Razor: “ascertain the stupidest possible scenario that can be reconciled with the available facts” and that answer is likely correct.
Trump's Razor says that the likeliest explanation is that he was in fact this stupid.

Morgenstern 04-24-2018 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka (Post 20920885)
Yeah, nuke and missile tests are easy to detect, so I suspect they actually are telling the truth about suspending them, at least for now. Obviously that's only one modest step in a process that the USA hopes will eventually lead to complete denuclearization, but it does appear to be a step in the right direction.

I'm afraid trump believes horseshit like that too. Denuclearization in a world where the US won't talk about Israel's nuclear program, but will about NKs? See the Vela incident, 9/22/79.

Quartz 04-24-2018 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka (Post 20920885)
Yeah, nuke and missile tests are easy to detect

Well yes, but what about the work-ups to the tests? Have, for instance, they stopped production of nuclear materials? What about rocket parts?

Ashtura 04-24-2018 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka (Post 20915248)
source

I'm rather pleasantly surprised with the progress Trump has made on the North Korean front. This appears, at least to me, to be the most significant progress towards denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula that has made in the last couple of decades. Am I missing something here, or is this good news?

I'll wait to be impressed when they denuclearize without having to send them tons of money and/or remove our troops from S Korea.

In other words, the "deal" is, you denuclearize and we'll let you stay leader of your pissant country.

BobLibDem 04-24-2018 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ashtura (Post 20921377)
I'll wait to be impressed when they denuclearize without having to send them tons of money and/or remove our troops from S Korea.

In other words, the "deal" is, you denuclearize and we'll let you stay leader of your pissant country.

When you build the nukes in order to ensure that your regime is not toppled by foreign interests, you don't give them up. Kim will not give them up, denuclearization will never happen. Anyone who thinks that this is in the cards will be disappointed.

CarnalK 04-24-2018 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ashtura (Post 20921377)
I'll wait to be impressed when they denuclearize without having to send them tons of money and/or remove our troops from S Korea.

In other words, the "deal" is, you denuclearize and we'll let you stay leader of your pissant country.

Do you really think the U.S. is the one in charge of who gets to be leader in N Korea? That's some breathtaking arrogance. The U.S. can lead sanctions and other diplomatic angles of attack but they aren't remotely in a position to decide on a regime change.

Ashtura 04-24-2018 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarnalK (Post 20921403)
Do you really think the U.S. is the one in charge of who gets to be leader in N Korea? That's some breathtaking arrogance. The U.S. can lead sanctions and other diplomatic angles of attack but they aren't remotely in a position to decide on a regime change.

Nope, I don't think that. I also don't think anything of substance is going to come of this exchange, other than a photo op for Kim to legitimize himself as a world leader.

They've already got the bomb. They've already got an ICBM that is a reasonable threat to the US. There as big a threat as they've ever been.

So, saying they won't test or detonate if we (insert random capitulation here) is just more of the same. A joke. A joke that will last maybe a few years until they rinse and repeat and do it again, same as before.

Morgenstern 04-24-2018 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobLibDem (Post 20921387)
When you build the nukes in order to ensure that your regime is not toppled by foreign interests, you don't give them up. Kim will not give them up, denuclearization will never happen. Anyone who thinks that this is in the cards will be disappointed.

This is exactly what will happen, meanwhile the administration will tell everyone who will listen that they have removed the nuclear threat from the Korean peninsula.

dropzone 04-24-2018 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers (Post 20919951)
Sharp knees. Would not bang.

No, they'd click.

Who'll take the woman with the skinny legs? I will.

CarnalK 04-24-2018 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ashtura (Post 20921511)
Nope, I don't think that. I also don't think anything of substance is going to come of this exchange, other than a photo op for Kim to legitimize himself as a world leader.

They've already got the bomb. They've already got an ICBM that is a reasonable threat to the US. There as big a threat as they've ever been.

So, saying they won't test or detonate if we (insert random capitulation here) is just more of the same. A joke. A joke that will last maybe a few years until they rinse and repeat and do it again, same as before.

None of this explains why you said "In other words, the "deal" is, you denuclearize and we'll let you stay leader of your pissant country."

Ashtura 04-24-2018 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarnalK (Post 20921600)
None of this explains why you said "In other words, the "deal" is, you denuclearize and we'll let you stay leader of your pissant country."

My point is, Trump goes in with brass balls or not at all.

We can, and have, made regime changes. Some overtly, some covertly.

HurricaneDitka 04-24-2018 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morgenstern (Post 20920979)
I'm afraid trump believes horseshit like that too. ...

So you think it's ... what, exactly? A step in the wrong direction? The world was a better place when North Korea was regularly launching missiles over Japan? I think your hatred for Trump has blinded you to reality.

running coach 04-24-2018 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ashtura (Post 20921636)
My point is, Trump goes in with brass balls or not at all.

We can, and have, made regime changes. Some overtly, some covertly.

Too bad he can't go in with a brain.

ElvisL1ves 04-24-2018 03:25 PM

It won't be him who goes in, either. None of his family members, for that matter.

Icarus 04-24-2018 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka (Post 20921648)
So you think it's ... what, exactly? A step in the wrong direction? The world was a better place when North Korea was regularly launching missiles over Japan? I think your hatred for Trump has blinded you to reality.

By your definition, a school shooter who stops to reload is making a "step in the right direction". Sorry, once you've passed a certain line, whatever small feints back toward the line no longer count.

Morgenstern 04-24-2018 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka (Post 20921648)
So you think it's ... what, exactly? A step in the wrong direction? The world was a better place when North Korea was regularly launching missiles over Japan? I think your hatred for Trump has blinded you to reality.

Those missiles will be repainted with DPRK Space Exploration on their side, and then shot over Japan.

I don't hate trump, I just fear that he's incapable of doing anything unless it involves a tantrum, a cookie and a hooker peeing on him. And, as long as she's over 18, I'm perfectly happy if he spends the next 2 years "in the shower."

HurricaneDitka 04-24-2018 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Icarus (Post 20921796)
By your definition, a school shooter who stops to reload is making a "step in the right direction". Sorry, once you've passed a certain line, whatever small feints back toward the line no longer count.

I'm not claiming the "small feint" absolves them of past misdeeds, or means they deserve our unqualified trust in the matter, but it seems obvious to me that it's an improvement, like when a school shooter drops his weapon and throws up his hands, signaling his surrender to law enforcement.

bobot 04-24-2018 03:47 PM

Which is not at all, like not even close at all, to what Kim is now doing.

HurricaneDitka 04-24-2018 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobot (Post 20921821)
Which is not at all, like not even close at all, to what Kim is now doing.

Really?

NYT: North Korea Signals Willingness to 'Denuclearize,' South Says

Quote:

North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, has told South Korean envoys he is willing to negotiate with the United States on abandoning his country’s nuclear weapons, officials from the South said Tuesday. Mr. Kim also said he would suspend all nuclear and missile tests while such talks were underway, they said.
Of course there's still a lot of negotiating between here and any actual denuclearization, but it seems a lot closer to my characterization of events than "stops to reload" was.

Bryan Ekers 04-24-2018 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka (Post 20921856)
Really?

"Doing" != "saying." I'm glad you're getting to experience some optimism, though.

asahi 04-24-2018 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka (Post 20921856)
Really?

NYT: North Korea Signals Willingness to 'Denuclearize,' South Says



Of course there's still a lot of negotiating between here and any actual denuclearization, but it seems a lot closer to my characterization of events than "stops to reload" was.

I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade, but I'd like to point out that South Korea's newly-elected president has a horse in this race, too. He's a democratically-elected leader of a moderate left party that has tended to argue for more soft-line diplomacy than hard-line diplomacy with North Korea. He's positioning himself politically as being the guy who got these two seemingly unhinged leaders to get in the same room to talk with each other about possible peace. Regardless of what happens afterward, one could see how that might make him look politically attractive to South Korean voters.

RTFirefly 04-24-2018 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka (Post 20921856)
Of course there's still a lot of negotiating between here and any actual denuclearization, but it seems a lot closer to my characterization of events than "stops to reload" was.

In terms of security against an invasion by a hostile power, there's a world of difference between having nukes and not having nukes, as Saddam Hussein found out fifteen years ago.

I'm not being facetious here when I ask: just what can we offer Kim that would be worth enough to him to give up that kind of security?

elucidator 04-24-2018 06:06 PM

Food.

penultima thule 04-24-2018 06:21 PM

He doesn't look like he, or any of his inner circle are short of a calorie, or smoked salmon, smashed avocados or black caviar for that matter.

He is as considerate of "his people" as Trump is of "his tenants", indeed it's quite a similar attitude on several levels.

Fear Itself 04-24-2018 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka (Post 20921856)
Of course there's still a lot of negotiating between here and any actual denuclearization, but it seems a lot closer to my characterization of events than "stops to reload" was.

Is this negotiation going to take place before Trump meets with Kim next month, or will he alone make the deal happen in real time?

I'll make you a bet; Kim will test another missile within six months of the summit meeting. By the end of the year, tops.

asahi 04-24-2018 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by penultima thule (Post 20922102)
He doesn't look like he, or any of his inner circle are short of a calorie, or smoked salmon, smashed avocados or black caviar for that matter.

He is as considerate of "his people" as Trump is of "his tenants", indeed it's quite a similar attitude on several levels.

He and his inner circle may not be short, but if enough of his military are, that could be a problem. If enough of the military care enough at severe food and supply shortages for everyone else not in the military, that could also be a problem. Intense brainwashing is obviously having the desired effect, but it's not fail-safe. There are people who defect from North Korea, after all. And there have been more and more of them lately.

asahi 04-24-2018 08:04 PM

It's just too bad that in the last election, we had a choice between foreign policy that's really not at all that good (Clinton) versus no foreign policy at all (Trump, Sanders, and Johnson). America's got global power, but its rapidly getting dumber and dumber at using it. Our choice has become, do we do something stupid or do we do nothing at all. Other countries don't respect us; they fear us - fear that we'll either do something magnificently stupid or just irresponsibly walk away leaving a power vacuum and everyone else fighting over it. We take this baggage into every set of negotiations and this summit will be absolutely no different.

Little Nemo 04-24-2018 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka (Post 20921814)
I'm not claiming the "small feint" absolves them of past misdeeds, or means they deserve our unqualified trust in the matter, but it seems obvious to me that it's an improvement, like when a school shooter drops his weapon and throws up his hands, signaling his surrender to law enforcement.

That comparison is utter nonsense. Kim isn't throwing up his hands and surrendering. He's just announced that he's done testing nuclear weapons.

To use your analogy, the school shooter has left the gun store and is driving towards the school. And you're telling us it's a positive sign because he's no longer in the store buying boxes of ammunition.

Little Nemo 04-24-2018 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka (Post 20921856)
Of course there's still a lot of negotiating between here and any actual denuclearization, but it seems a lot closer to my characterization of events than "stops to reload" was.

You do understand that Kim is saying his condition for abandoning nuclear weapons is a complete American withdrawal from South Korea? In other words, he wants Trump to throw up his hands and surrender.

HurricaneDitka 04-24-2018 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Nemo (Post 20922271)
You do understand that Kim is saying his condition for abandoning nuclear weapons is a complete American withdrawal from South Korea? In other words, he wants Trump to throw up his hands and surrender.

I actually understood that they'd dropped that particular demand. CNN: North Korea drops withdrawal of US forces as condition of denuclearization, Moon says

Where are you getting your information from?

penultima thule 04-25-2018 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asahi (Post 20922232)
He and his inner circle may not be short, but if enough of his military are, that could be a problem. If enough of the military care enough at severe food and supply shortages for everyone else not in the military, that could also be a problem. Intense brainwashing is obviously having the desired effect, but it's not fail-safe. There are people who defect from North Korea, after all. And there have been more and more of them lately.

1. You don't need to be particularly well nourished to push a launch button
2. It's not the defectors who will make a difference, it's the returnees. The guys who've been outside the peninsula or just to South Korea and come back with the inkling of a notion that what is considered normal stress and suffering of life in the hermit kingdom doesn't approximate normal on the other side of the 38th parallel.

asahi 04-25-2018 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka (Post 20922463)
I actually understood that they'd dropped that particular demand. CNN: North Korea drops withdrawal of US forces as condition of denuclearization, Moon says

Where are you getting your information from?

In terms of symbolism, that would be a significant concession and it's an encouraging sign at least; however, the reality is that troops in South Korea are largely not much more than a symbolic tripwire. The test is, what happens to sanctions and the policy of political isolation against his regime? The US position to date has been, North Korea must end its weapons program (and some would argue destroy the arsenal it has) and also stop engaging in other hostile acts first, before the policies of isolation and sanctions end. It seems likely that KJL would ask Trump to show some flexibility in that regard, and even if Trump is willing to negotiate, it's not clear how the rest of Congress would view any compromise. Republicans in Congress essentially derailed Clinton's attempts to achieve a similar outcome in the 1990s. He would probably face bipartisan skepticism.

Isilder 04-25-2018 08:53 AM

The thing with the cold war arms race making nuclear weapons moot .. the west has long had a police of trading with the commies, in order to get them addicted to trade.

So whats happenned is a classic case of good cop, bad cop.

This is a good cop only in that it can't take criticsim, and certainly won't admit any mistake. No matter, it still gets to pass the bad cops message on.


Good cop.. China... "Nothings wrong, its all peaceful ,we didnt do anything wrong, USA is sabre rattling for nothing."

Bad cop. USA's trump.. "we will blow you commies to hell .. or at least threaten you and your allies and cut off trade".

Good cop China ... "well , there isnt anything wrong, but the west has its knickers in a knot, and we can't afford a blockage of trade with China.. and we are feeling sorry for the citizens of Korea.. How about North Korea become a responsible government as defined by 2018 standards, not 1718."


I am thinking that China would have told North Korea that it has to be a pseudo-communist country, you know one country two systems ? One system is the ghost of communism .. the shell of it exists as the oligarchy running a dictatorship.. the other system is the cash cow... the industries... the capitalist system.

So I think that changes happen in NK due to China...

But NK leadership has to pretend that its due to USA. So as to make everyone think that they were forced to change, not that they are admitting the old ways were wrong.

Isilder 04-25-2018 09:01 AM

The chinese oligarchy would have explained to Kim that the way Kim was talking, he was risking losing face and having a revolution occuring against them.

China would have explained that the President of the USA is directly elected, and in no way to be taken as if a powerful ruler... he can stretch some emergency powers as long as his party tolerates it. If they didnt tolerate it, they'd vote and stop him.. or even get rid of him. So its really that the whole Republic party supports efforts to cause change in North Korea.. how can Kim outcompete a disposable POTUSA ? Kim has to be the indisposable statesmen... not the disposable one.

Isilder 04-25-2018 09:14 AM

Now think how cleaning up NK's act helps china ? The chinese gov is scared of the effect of the China industrial revolution change on their citizens ..there is the threat of revolution ... they have democratic systems now... sure, its only community groups, which control street names and lunar new year celebratons.. but they may get together in the suburbs and form a party and demand democracy at the higher levels. They are the child of communist minions, and know the communist system...if they get together, they'd know enough to prove the oligarchy is a corrupt group of croneys. So anyway ,the North Korea gov was making the Chinese gov look bad.. but having NK clean up would be a boon to china's oligarchy.. they'd be able to say communism wasn't dead..

Kiber 04-25-2018 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka (Post 20921648)
So you think it's ... what, exactly? A step in the wrong direction? The world was a better place when North Korea was regularly launching missiles over Japan? I think your hatred for Trump has blinded you to reality.

Turns out that, whether this is a positive step or a terrible idea, depends only on when you ask the question.

manson1972 04-25-2018 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kiber (Post 20923091)
Turns out that, whether this is a positive step or a terrible idea, depends only on when you ask the question.

That is friggin' fantastic.

Johnny Ace 04-25-2018 11:09 AM

Hahaha classic.

Buck Godot 04-25-2018 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka (Post 20921648)
So you think it's ... what, exactly? A step in the wrong direction? The world was a better place when North Korea was regularly launching missiles over Japan? I think your hatred for Trump has blinded you to reality.

I would say that it is a small step in the right direction that had nothing to do with Trump, and everything to do with Kim's current set of goals, and possibly South Korea's new leader.

I also think that while this could potentially be a great opportunity, it will require very careful negotiations in order to exploit it. In the hands of expert diplomats with a firm understanding of the internal politics, culture and goals of all parties in the vicinity, this could be the start of real progress.

Unfortunately Trump has basically thrown out anyone in the state department who would fit that description. He also has a Dunning Kruger level of confidence in his own negotiation abilities and so will blunder into the negotiations blindly, confident in his powers as world's best deal maker that he can outwit Rocketman. However, Rocketman has been immersed in the politics of the region his whole life, while Trump only recently learned that the Korean war ended in an armistice rather than a peace treaty. It is also important to remember that Trump that Trump's goal isn't to get the best deal for the US, it's to get the best deal for Trump. So he would gladly sell all of the US's influence in the region in exchange for something he can tweet victory about back home.

elucidator 04-25-2018 11:38 AM

If this Peace Scare looks like it might get out of control, there's always Bolton.

Buck Godot 04-25-2018 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka (Post 20921814)
I'm not claiming the "small feint" absolves them of past misdeeds, or means they deserve our unqualified trust in the matter, but it seems obvious to me that it's an improvement, like when a school shooter drops his weapon and throws up his hands, signaling his surrender to law enforcement.

He definitely hasn't dropped the gun. At best he has picked up the phone and agreed to talk to the police. The problem is that our hostage negotiator is this guy.

BeepKillBeep 04-25-2018 11:49 AM

I think this has something to do with Trump, but nothing to do with Trump's ability at dealmaking and diplomacy. I think for Kim it is a matter of Trump needs a war badly. He's just brought on a warmonger as Sec'y of State. It is better to feign some overtures of peace, which will implicitly hold up a sign pointing to Iran that says "Plz bomb here". Hopefully, dialogue between NK and SK will make some real progress even if I don't think NK's heart is really in it. Sometimes just coming to the table and talking can sort some things out.

Chisquirrel 04-25-2018 12:04 PM

Recent reports suggest one of North Korea's sites kinda 'sploded. Not to be a Debby Downer, but that seems like a far more likely reason for the sudden halt than anything Trump has done.

elucidator 04-25-2018 12:32 PM

His military are no doubt pleased to have nukes and missiles. But now they have them, have tested them, so they exist, their deterrent value will not improve with more testing, especially if they don't work. Quit while you're ahead.

Also, this shit is expensive as a motherfuck. Money that might otherwise be spent buying food to feed the troops.

Deeg 04-25-2018 03:03 PM

As much as I despise Trump I think HD is correct (for now) that Trump gets a bit of credit for the current movement of NK. Maybe it's a big farce on NK's part (likely) or maybe it'll fall apart (possible) or maybe Trump will tweet something stupid about NK and blow it all up, but right now it looks hopeful. Maybe as hopeful as it's been since the 1950's.

I don't believe it's any great statesmanship by Trump, though. I think it just as likely that Kim realized that one crazy person in the room can get away with shit but two crazy people feed off each other and someone ends up getting hurt. Trump still gets credit for that, I'd say.

RTFirefly 04-25-2018 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kiber (Post 20923091)
Turns out that, whether this is a positive step or a terrible idea, depends only on when you ask the question.

Oh, that's wonderful! I check in at TPM several times a day (loyal Prime subscriber!), and how the heck did I miss this gem?

Little Nemo 04-25-2018 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka (Post 20922463)
I actually understood that they'd dropped that particular demand. CNN: North Korea drops withdrawal of US forces as condition of denuclearization, Moon says

Where are you getting your information from?

Moon clarified his statement in subsequent reports. North Korea has not renounced its long-held call for an American withdrawal; it simply has chosen not to explicitly raise it this week.

Johnny Ace 04-25-2018 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deeg (Post 20923843)
As much as I despise Trump I think HD is correct (for now) that Trump gets a bit of credit for the current movement of NK. Maybe it's a big farce on NK's part (likely) or maybe it'll fall apart (possible) or maybe Trump will tweet something stupid about NK and blow it all up, but right now it looks hopeful. Maybe as hopeful as it's been since the 1950's.

I don't believe it's any great statesmanship by Trump, though. I think it just as likely that Kim realized that one crazy person in the room can get away with shit but two crazy people feed off each other and someone ends up getting hurt. Trump still gets credit for that, I'd say.

Please. Trump isn't a 'great negotiator' with anyone who doesn't want to kiss his ass. Kim saw Putin playing him like a fiddle and he's trying the same.

HurricaneDitka 04-26-2018 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Nemo (Post 20924412)
Moon clarified his statement in subsequent reports. North Korea has not renounced its long-held call for an American withdrawal; it simply has chosen not to explicitly raise it this week.

You didn't answer my question. What is your source?

Deeg 04-27-2018 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Ace (Post 20924509)
Please. Trump isn't a 'great negotiator' with anyone who doesn't want to kiss his ass. Kim saw Putin playing him like a fiddle and he's trying the same.

I'm not sure you read my entire post. On the international stage Trump is generally a disaster. In the business world his posturing may appear to work but--in foreign policy--opposing countries have competing interests which Trump can't fathom. His erratic flip-flopping makes it hard for other nations to have a coherent strategy. He undermines his own negotiators; he could hardly be worse.

However, in the case of NK, his erratic behavior might actually be a positive. In the past NK could probably bank on US presidents not wanting to be responsible for thousands (millions?) of SK deaths. But Trump can't think that far ahead; all he knows is that NK is bad--really bad-- and he has a big hammer; who knows if he might actually use it? Is NK trying to get some support from SK as an attempt to corral Trump?

Maybe NK would be doing the same thing if Clinton (who would have a much better grasp of international politics) were president but it's happening under Trump.

asahi 04-27-2018 06:36 AM

So the two Koreas have met:

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ce-kim-jong-un

What occurred to me as I was reading about their summit and reading about all of the warm fuzzies that the summit might be creating is that it creates a potential problem for the United States.

If the two Koreas appear to be working toward some sort of peace agreement, then that puts the United States in the position of having to support that agreement, irrespective of whether or not it addresses the concerns of the US and Japan. If voters in South Korea view the summit positively, that puts the US and Trump in the position of potentially fucking it all up if the Kim-Trump summit somehow breaks down, which would potentially drive a wedge between the US and South Korea.

If, let's say, Kim Jong Un pledges to President Moon that he will suspend further development of his nuclear program and missile testing and maybe even scrap some of his biological arsenal or offer other minor concessions, then that could be viewed as "progress," particularly if Moon, independent of US and Japan's concerns, views this as a stepping stone toward the end of sanctions against Kim's regime.

Kim may also be angling for an even more powerful play here, which is a direct connection to the South Korean people. Through Moon, he may have opened up a more direct channel of communication to persuade South Koreans that he just wants to be left alone and that the two Koreans can manage their own affairs without other world powers like the US involved. Even among South Koreans, there is a long-standing sentiment that countries have exploited Koreans for their own benefit. Korea has a history of being invaded, occupied, and exploited by larger, more powerful outside powers and Kim knows that he can use that sentiment to his advantage in dealing with the US and Japan.

John Mace 04-27-2018 07:11 AM

The South Korean president is unlikely to agree to something that the US would be strongly against as they could risk losing some defense support in response. Kim could promise him the moon, but if that's a problem for the US, it's a problem for SK.

Steve MB 04-27-2018 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Ace (Post 20924509)
Please. Trump isn't a 'great negotiator' with anyone who doesn't want to kiss his ass. Kim saw Putin playing him like a fiddle and he's trying the same.

Kim has done pretty well playing a rather weak hand, such as spinning the collapse of his nuclear test site into a statesmanlike "decision" that he is willing to forego further tests in the interests of yadda yadda yadda.

simster 04-27-2018 07:44 AM

optimistic me : this is great - its time that the Korea war ends officially and maybe Kim means it this time.

realistic me :

1.) end war
2.) re-unify korea - formalize trade, etc
3.) Tell U.S. "Thanks for helping, you're no longer needed here to 'defend' against NK" - our forces must leave
4.) Kim kills Moon and rest of SK reps - declares himself president of Korea (all of it)
5.) Kim still has his nukes, etc from the beginning - but now he ALSO has all of SK and its wealth and people.

Basically - Kim is using this to do a 'bloodless' takeover of SK - he needs it.

carnivorousplant 04-27-2018 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tim314 (Post 20919709)
Obama got one for not being George W. Bush. Which, even as a liberal Obama voter, I found absurd.

Me, too.

Ravenman 04-27-2018 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka (Post 20924735)
You didn't answer my question. What is your source?

I think the issue is still ambiguous: I've seen reports that DPRK dropped its demand for U.S. troops withdrawal as a "precondition" for talks on denuclearization (which has obviously happened), and also that it has dropped its demand for withdrawal as a part of a final denuclearization deal.

While the breakthroughs yesterday and today are very good news, let's not kid ourselves about the North Korean position on withdrawal of U.S. troops:

Quote:

But Pyongyang has made similar remarks in the past -- only to subsequently demand such a step -- along with abrogating the bilateral defense treaty and removing the U.S. extended deterrence guarantee.

In 1992, previous leader Kim Jong-il indicated the North would accept having U.S. troops remain in the South, while former U.S. negotiator to the Six Party Talks Robert Gallucci recalled he had been told by his North Korean counterpart in 1994 that “we don’t actually require that the U.S. remove its troops from the South.” During the 2000 inter-Korean summit, Kim Jong-il told South Korean President Kim Dae-jung, “It is desirable that U.S. troops stay as a peacekeeping force in Korea, instead of a hostile force against the North."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/insidea.../#1bcb78644221

Of course, the Republican reaction to these talks is just as puzzling. When Clinton negotiated a deal with North Korea, he was a sucker. When Obama negotiated a deal with Iran, he was a sucker. When Moon negotiates a nascent deal with North Korea, OMG TRUMP WINS!!! Not to mention that Trump just hired a National Security Adviser who could not be further from the "let's use diplomacy with North Korea" camp.

John Mace 04-27-2018 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simster (Post 20927062)
optimistic me : this is great - its time that the Korea war ends officially and maybe Kim means it this time.

realistic me :

1.) end war
2.) re-unify korea - formalize trade, etc
3.) Tell U.S. "Thanks for helping, you're no longer needed here to 'defend' against NK" - our forces must leave
4.) Kim kills Moon and rest of SK reps - declares himself president of Korea (all of it)
5.) Kim still has his nukes, etc from the beginning - but now he ALSO has all of SK and its wealth and people.

Basically - Kim is using this to do a 'bloodless' takeover of SK - he needs it.

Realistic??? Are you taking bets, because I've got some cash burning a hole in my pocket.

carnivorousplant 04-27-2018 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ravenman (Post 20927091)
...Not to mention that Trump just hired a National Security Adviser who could not be further from the "let's use diplomacy with North Korea" camp.

I wonder if that tipped the scale with the North Koreans or the Chinese.

LAZombie 04-27-2018 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ravenman (Post 20927091)
I think the issue is still ambiguous: I've seen reports that DPRK dropped its demand for U.S. troops withdrawal as a "precondition" for talks on denuclearization (which has obviously happened), and also that it has dropped its demand for withdrawal as a part of a final denuclearization deal.

While the breakthroughs yesterday and today are very good news, let's not kid ourselves about the North Korean position on withdrawal of U.S. troops:


https://www.forbes.com/sites/insidea.../#1bcb78644221

Of course, the Republican reaction to these talks is just as puzzling. When Clinton negotiated a deal with North Korea, he was a sucker. When Obama negotiated a deal with Iran, he was a sucker. When Moon negotiates a nascent deal with North Korea, OMG TRUMP WINS!!! Not to mention that Trump just hired a National Security Adviser who could not be further from the "let's use diplomacy with North Korea" camp.

"Kim acknowledged the widespread skepticism over their summit. "We have reached big agreements before but were unable to fulfill them. ... There are skeptical views on whether the meeting today will yield meaningful results," Kim said. "If we maintain a firm will and proceed forward hand in hand, it will be impossible at least for things to get worse than they are now."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...04-26-20-51-35

Gyrate 04-27-2018 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tim314 (Post 20919709)
Obama got one for not being George W. Bush. Which, even as a liberal Obama voter, I found absurd.

And I too. I think the Nobel committee were a tad peeved at President Bush about the whole Iraq thing and they weren't allowed to award a Nobel Fuck You Prize to him, so they had to do it indirectly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by simster (Post 20927062)
optimistic me : this is great - its time that the Korea war ends officially and maybe Kim means it this time.

realistic me :

1.) end war
2.) re-unify korea - formalize trade, etc
3.) Tell U.S. "Thanks for helping, you're no longer needed here to 'defend' against NK" - our forces must leave
4.) Kim kills Moon and rest of SK reps - declares himself president of Korea (all of it)
5.) Kim still has his nukes, etc from the beginning - but now he ALSO has all of SK and its wealth and people.

Basically - Kim is using this to do a 'bloodless' takeover of SK - he needs it.

What the what now? Even Tom Clancy would balk at writing that last scenario, considering it too implausible. Does this stealth coup rely on whether the flags in the DMZ have gold fringes?

Ravenman 04-27-2018 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carnivorousplant (Post 20927125)
I wonder if that tipped the scale with the North Koreans or the Chinese.

I find that about as likely as the mistaken believe that Iranians released the hostages on Inauguration Day 1981 because they were soooooooo scared of Reagan.

simster 04-27-2018 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Mace (Post 20927114)
Realistic??? Are you taking bets, because I've got some cash burning a hole in my pocket.

I meant to edit that to 'cynical' or 'pessimistic' me - but time ran out and I didn't.

asahi 04-27-2018 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ravenman (Post 20927091)
Of course, the Republican reaction to these talks is just as puzzling. When Clinton negotiated a deal with North Korea, he was a sucker. When Obama negotiated a deal with Iran, he was a sucker. When Moon negotiates a nascent deal with North Korea, OMG TRUMP WINS!!!

Right? Just like Reagan "won" the Cold War all by himself. :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ravenman (Post 20927091)
Not to mention that Trump just hired a National Security Adviser who could not be further from the "let's use diplomacy with North Korea" camp.

The Bolton factor will be interesting indeed.

Deeg 04-27-2018 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Mace (Post 20927018)
The South Korean president is unlikely to agree to something that the US would be strongly against as they could risk losing some defense support in response. Kim could promise him the moon, but if that's a problem for the US, it's a problem for SK.

This is where Trump's erraticism is either a boon or blessing. How does SK decide what the US (read: Trump) will be strongly against? He called Kim an "honorable" man the other day. Maybe SK goes out on a limb and decides to do what's best for SK.

I saw this on another board I frequent; from The Guardian: Inside North Korea, all they will say about Trump is 'he's crazy'

Officials there [NK] have long calculated that no US president would risk lives in Seoul with an attack on the North. But under Trump that is no longer a safe assumption, says Andrei Lankov, professor of Korean Studies at Kookmin University.

elucidator 04-27-2018 12:11 PM

In the past, we survived several examples of nuclear dumfuckery when cooler heads prevailed based on little more than the faith that the Other Guy was not insane. We could be pretty sure that the Other Guy also knew that the POTUS wasn't either.

And now? Well, maybe the installation of John of House Bolton as a national security advisor has reassured them.

ElvisL1ves 04-27-2018 12:52 PM

It's easy to say you're not going to test anymore when you can't.
Quote:

North Korea's nuclear test in September last year was so strong that it caused an on-site collapse at the test site, geologists in China claim.

Using high-quality seismic data to pinpoint the location of several tremors that followed the test, the researchers determined that one event 8.5 minutes after the nuclear test was in fact the cavity caused by the blast collapsing.

simster 04-27-2018 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves (Post 20927708)
It's easy to say you're not going to test anymore when you can't.

So - they are now Kronos in the 'undiscovered country'.

Steve MB 04-27-2018 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simster (Post 20927737)
So - they are now Kronos in the 'undiscovered country'.

Yes, except Star Trek VI didn't have an orange Pakled swooping in trying to take credit for everything.

Ravenman 04-27-2018 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asahi (Post 20927310)
Right? Just like Reagan "won" the Cold War all by himself. :

Trump made some sort of comment today about how a lot changed in North Korea after he started saying things like "Rocket Man" and "Liddle Kim." Yep, that's what changed.

Tatterdemalion 04-27-2018 08:21 PM

Quote:

Now it is not good for the Christian’s health to hustle the Aryan brown,
For the Christian riles, and the Aryan smiles and he weareth the Christian down;
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white with the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear: “A Fool lies here who tried to hustle the East.”
This little gem from Rudyard Kipling just popped into my mind. The language is very un-pc, but there is some wisdom there.

I think that whatever happens with Korea and Iran, Trump is going to get his ass handed to him.

I suspect that when the dust (but hopefully not the fallout) settles, the end game is Iran has nukes, North Korea still has nukes, and the Europeans and Chinese are happily trading with both of them. And we'll be frozen out.

carnivorousplant 04-27-2018 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tatterdemalion (Post 20928504)
This little gem from Rudyard Kipling just popped into my mind. The language is very un-pc, but there is some wisdom there.

I think that whatever happens with Korea and Iran, Trump is going to get his ass handed to him.

An very appropriate comment, but I believe that we will have our asses handed to us, one way or another.

Little Nemo 04-27-2018 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka (Post 20924735)
You didn't answer my question. What is your source?

You can find multiple sources for this. Here's some of the first ones I found via a quick google search:
Quote:

Questions remain about how North Korea would define denuclearization, which Washington sees as Pyongyang abandoning its nuclear weapons program.

North Korea has said over the years that it could consider giving up its nuclear arsenal if the United States removed its troops from South Korea and withdrew its so-called nuclear umbrella of deterrence from South Korea and Japan.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-n...-idUSKBN1HF0WQ
Quote:

First South Korean, then Chinese officials have in recent weeks reported North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has told them he is “committed to denuclearization” on the Korean peninsula.

Kim’s declared commitment to denuclearization, however, is neither new, nor likely in line with Washington’s expectations.

North Korea has long said it is open to eventually giving up its nuclear arsenal if the United States withdraws its troops from South Korea and ends its “nuclear umbrella” security alliance with Seoul, among other conditions.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-n...-idUSKBN1H40YI
Quote:

But what does “denuclearization” mean?

It depends on whom you are asking. To some in Washington, “the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula,” as Trump tweeted late last month, means Kim handing over his nuclear weapons and missile systems and allowing international inspectors to check that the regime is keeping its word.

To Pyongyang, it means something very, very different. It means mutual steps to get rid of nuclear weapons, including requiring the United States to take down the nuclear umbrella it has put up over South Korea and Japan.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.b4d9757c1b2e

Bryan Ekers 04-27-2018 11:01 PM

I predict:

1. No matter what happens, Trump will claim an unprecedented victory.

2. A lot of Americans will say they agree.

3. Some of them will actually believe it.

Chisquirrel 04-28-2018 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve MB (Post 20927034)
Kim has done pretty well playing a rather weak hand, such as spinning the collapse of his nuclear test site into a statesmanlike "decision" that he is willing to forego further tests in the interests of yadda yadda yadda.

And had the Tangerine Mussolini given it all the appropriate reception and ignored it, he would have folded or busted. Instead, the Imbecile-In-Chief tried to spin it as one of his "accomplishments" and gave power to Kim in the long term.

Are we really talking about Trump being a statesman when he's only months removed from "my nuclear button is bigger"?

John Mace 04-28-2018 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ravenman (Post 20927837)
Trump made some sort of comment today about how a lot changed in North Korea after he started saying things like "Rocket Man" and "Liddle Kim." Yep, that's what changed.

I think there is a possibility that the Chinese, fearful of a crazy and unpredictable US president, have put some pressure on NK to make some changes. I don't know if it's likely or not, but I think it's possible. But even if that's the case, it's a stupid and risky policy to use name calling as your primary form of "diplomacy".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chisquirrel (Post 20928812)
And had the Tangerine Mussolini...

I usually find the nicknames people here give Trump to be more eye-rolling than anything else, but that one made me chuckle. And, it would be an excellent band name to boot!! :)

Try2B Comprehensive 04-28-2018 03:30 PM

If Trump & Co. can genuinely de-nuclearize NK and turn it from a starving pariah state into a halfway normal place, I will happily give them credit for the win and accept the "statesman" label for Trump. I will accept "honorable" for Kim Jong Un- heck, I will go so far as "whatta guy!" and invite him over to my place for some brats, let him play with my cat and drink my beer. It would be unequivocally a Good Thing if de-nuclearization occurs.

For now though, it is all a little too early. Let's wait until we see some results.

voltaire 04-28-2018 03:55 PM

Poor SK President Moon... Dude has to reason and deal with two of the world's most unreasonable, lying scumbags, and by all appearances, they're the ones set to get all the credit for being reasonable and making the deal.

LAZombie 04-28-2018 05:10 PM

"National security experts, and even the South Korean foreign minister, are crediting Mr. Trump for bringing North Korea to the table." My bold.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-s...t-experts-say/

asahi 04-28-2018 08:30 PM

Here's the thing: If Trump actually opposes the John Boltons within his administration and is part of brokering an actual peace agreement, and if he's able to overcome the objections of militarists within the government and if he can get Congress to support him...then yes, I will give the man his due. It might feel like I'm cutting off my right testicle, but I'll give Trump credit if he can actually be an innovator when it comes to US foreign policy. That also means, however, that Kim has to hold up his end of the bargain and he has to be prepared in case he doesn't. This looks easy now; it won't be easy, and that will be revealed in time.

asahi 04-28-2018 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by voltaire (Post 20929637)
Poor SK President Moon... Dude has to reason and deal with two of the world's most unreasonable, lying scumbags, and by all appearances, they're the ones set to get all the credit for being reasonable and making the deal.

Pfff...that guy's an opportunist. I don't feel sorry for Moon -- like at all. In fact, I suspect that he's just trying to throw the US under the bus.

carnivorousplant 04-28-2018 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asahi (Post 20929968)
Pfff...that guy's an opportunist. I don't feel sorry for Moon -- like at all. In fact, I suspect that he's just trying to throw the US under the bus.

That would be like North Korea throwing China under the bus. It ain't going to happen.

running coach 04-28-2018 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carnivorousplant (Post 20930013)
That would be like North Korea throwing China under the bus. It ain't going to happen.

They're gonna need a bigger bus.

Little Nemo 04-28-2018 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asahi (Post 20929968)
Pfff...that guy's an opportunist. I don't feel sorry for Moon -- like at all. In fact, I suspect that he's just trying to throw the US under the bus.

I doubt it. South Korea still needs America as a counterweight to China.

Kim seems to be looking to take North Korea from its outlaw status to regular dictatorship status.

voltaire 04-28-2018 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asahi (Post 20929965)
Here's the thing: If Trump actually opposes the John Boltons within his administration and is part of brokering an actual peace agreement, and if he's able to overcome the objections of militarists within the government and if he can get Congress to support him...then yes, I will give the man his due. It might feel like I'm cutting off my right testicle, but I'll give Trump credit if he can actually be an innovator when it comes to US foreign policy. That also means, however, that Kim has to hold up his end of the bargain and he has to be prepared in case he doesn't. This looks easy now; it won't be easy, and that will be revealed in time.

Here's the thing, NK will not denuclearize anytime soon. Everybody that knows anything knows that. Trump needs a win on a pretty tight time frame and the biggest component of any such possible "win" is actually pretty obvious. He's going to "throw SK under the bus" by forcing them to pay and/or provide for their own defense, with some U.S. troops stationed there coming home immediately upon the announcement for show. It's something he and KJU both already want and can call a win. Throw something in about nuclear tests and missile ranges. Done deal.

Ravenman 04-29-2018 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAZombie (Post 20929752)
"National security experts, and even the South Korean foreign minister, are crediting Mr. Trump for bringing North Korea to the table." My bold.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-s...t-experts-say/

Are you the guy who cares about what experts think when they are mildly supportive of Trump, and then thinks they are part of the swamp when they are extremely critical? There’s so many posters around here I can’t keep track.

Surely part of the credit for this breakthrough should go to Trump’s handpicked ambassador to South Korea. That guy has been a master as working so far behind the scenes, his role in history will surely never be recognized.

asahi 04-29-2018 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Nemo (Post 20930028)
I doubt it. South Korea still needs America as a counterweight to China.

Kim seems to be looking to take North Korea from its outlaw status to regular dictatorship status.

You're probably correct, but the some segments of the left wing in South Korean politics believe that the US has conspired to disrupt ties between the North and South, and they wouldn't mind seeing the US out altogether. I'm not saying all South Koreans feel that way - the right and the centrists probably want the US to stay. But Moon represents a center-left position that sometimes leans away from the US.

I think what all South Koreans see the value of the US as a trading partner, and as you say, this enables the rest of Asia to have some balance in dealing with China's ascent toward being a superpower. On that note, Trump's proposed economic policies (tariffs and pulling out of TPP) with respect to South Korea would seem counterproductive.

Dropo 04-29-2018 10:18 AM

Perhaps Kim is the Gorbachev of N. Korea? Like Gorby, it is possible Kim has reached the conclusion that things must change in order to stay the same. He has grown up in the system, he has consolidated his power over it and he understands it is not sustainable over the long-term (especially with escalating sanctions). Perhaps N. Korea’s nuclear weapons program was always intended to be given away for long-term regime survival vis-à-vis the West. Regardless, there can be little doubt Kim understands that to actually use a nuke would mean the end of N. Korea, and that the West is just as unlikely to use them against N. Korea. With no practical utility in terms of use or even deterrent, giving them away for what the regime wants most of all – i.e., a guarantee of survival – does not seem too illogical as to defy credibility. I don’t actually believe it, but at this early point - and notwithstanding N. Korea’s long record of broken promises (all or certainly most of which pre-date l’il Kim’s reign) – it seems to me the possibility cannot be completely discounted.

Fear Itself 04-29-2018 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dropo (Post 20930507)
With no practical utility in terms of use or even deterrent, giving them away for what the regime wants most of all – i.e., a guarantee of survival – does not seem too illogical as to defy credibility.

Sure, it worked for Khadafi. Oh, wait...

TreacherousCretin 04-29-2018 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Mace (Post 20929075)
I usually find the nicknames people here give Trump to be more eye-rolling than anything else, but that one made me chuckle. And, it would be an excellent band name to boot!! :)

I prefer "Mango Mussolini" but to each their own.

carnivorousplant 04-29-2018 11:31 AM

I can't see Kim being as intelligent as Kahdafi. Not even possessing a certain low animal cunning.

Morgenstern 04-29-2018 08:52 PM

Let's give the credit to the proper person here.

"The fact that when I went over there the last time for [Jong Un's] birthday, I gave him Donald Trump's books. ... I think he didn't realize who Donald Trump was at that time. I gave him the books so he could understand him," Rodman said.

"I don't want to take all the credit. I don't want to say, 'I did this, I did that,'" Rodman said of any progress in the relationship between North Korea and the United States.


https://bleacherreport.com/articles/...n-relationship

It was Dennis Rodman who made this all possible. Thank you Dennis.

*whistles*

digs 04-29-2018 08:59 PM

Why did it have to be Rodman? Wouldn't Jordan have been a better diplomat? I mean, Kim could watch Space Jam to get up to speed on his golfing/basketball/saving the universe skills...

elucidator 04-30-2018 02:08 AM

Jordan might have been a mistake. To Air is human.

asahi 04-30-2018 04:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dropo (Post 20930507)
Perhaps Kim is the Gorbachev of N. Korea? Like Gorby, it is possible Kim has reached the conclusion that things must change in order to stay the same. He has grown up in the system, he has consolidated his power over it and he understands it is not sustainable over the long-term (especially with escalating sanctions). Perhaps N. Korea’s nuclear weapons program was always intended to be given away for long-term regime survival vis-à-vis the West. Regardless, there can be little doubt Kim understands that to actually use a nuke would mean the end of N. Korea, and that the West is just as unlikely to use them against N. Korea. With no practical utility in terms of use or even deterrent, giving them away for what the regime wants most of all – i.e., a guarantee of survival – does not seem too illogical as to defy credibility. I don’t actually believe it, but at this early point - and notwithstanding N. Korea’s long record of broken promises (all or certainly most of which pre-date l’il Kim’s reign) – it seems to me the possibility cannot be completely discounted.

Looks like you're not alone in thinking this -- the author from 38north.Org says some of the same things in your post.

https://www.38north.org/2018/04/rcarlin042318/

I've not had the feeling that Kim's putting on an act. He's still going to be a brutal sonofabitch, but I think he genuinely wants to take North Korea in a new direction. The sanctions are crippling his country, and people can't continue to live in misery forever without the itch to fight back at some point. He knows that.

The linked article puts some of Kim's more ruthless behavior into perspective: killing off his enemies so that they don't get in his way later, and making sure everyone else around sees what happens when you cross Rocket Man. This might make it easier for him to make changes happen.

The 3 big questions (there are more but the central ones) are:

1. Can the US and North Korea agree on a definition of "denuclearization?"

2. Is the US willing to lift sanctions?

3. Can the US accept North Korea being essentially a member of the nuclear club?

Johnny Ace 04-30-2018 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asahi (Post 20931450)
The 3 big questions (there are more but the central ones) are:

1. Can the US and North Korea agree on a definition of "denuclearization?"

2. Is the US willing to lift sanctions?

3. Can the US accept North Korea being essentially a member of the nuclear club?

1. Not a snowball's chance in hell.

2. Depends on who Chump talked to last.

3. There doesn't seem to be much choice there, unless Nikki Haley can manage to pull a Colin Powell on the world.

LAZombie 04-30-2018 08:35 AM

Trump should win the Nobel Peace Prize, says South Korea's Moon

"President Trump should win the Nobel Peace Prize. What we need is only peace," Moon told a meeting of senior secretaries, according to a presidential Blue House official who briefed media.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...oon/ar-AAwxgsO

Hillary would have taken us to war. Think about that.

Ravenman 04-30-2018 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAZombie (Post 20931644)
Hillary would have taken us to war. Think about that.

Wow, snappy point there. Maybe the most insightful critique of Clinton's foreign policy views since, "No, YOU'RE the puppet!"

Morgenstern 04-30-2018 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAZombie (Post 20931644)
Trump should win the Nobel Peace Prize, says South Korea's Moon

"President Trump should win the Nobel Peace Prize. What we need is only peace," Moon told a meeting of senior secretaries, according to a presidential Blue House official who briefed media.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...oon/ar-AAwxgsO

Hillary would have taken us to war. Think about that.

Personally, I think Dennis Rodman deserves a NPP. Dennis is smarter, a better dresser and he probably gets more ass.

Hillary wouldn't have done anything at all. No wall, no mass exodus from Washington, no peeing scandals, no porn stars, no screwing playboy models, no Putin's Princess, no refunding money to investors she defrauded. She would have been boring.

Gyrate 04-30-2018 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAZombie (Post 20931644)
Hillary would have taken us to war. Think about that.

And we know that based on the compelling evidence of "SHE JUST WOULD HAVE NEENER NEENER BENGHAZI EMAILS VINCE FOSTER", despite her relatively busy but otherwise unremarkable tenure as Secretary of State. Morgenstern is right - Clinton wouldn't have done anything to upset the status quo, and certainly nothing so chaotic as a war. That's more the Republicans' style.

My own theory is that if Donald Trump has facilitated the peace process between the Koreas at all it has been due to the application of his own particular version of the Madman Theory, except that - unlike Nixon - Trump isn't feigning being "irrational and volatile"; he genuinely is. Kim had been attempting something similar but was smart enough to realize he was being out-crazied by someone who was perfectly willing to start a nuclear war for stupid reasons, supported by advice from other irrational warhawks.

Which would also explain why Moon is so keen to give Trump the credit - he's probably scared not to. Only half-joking there

Ravenman 04-30-2018 11:03 AM

There was a Republican congressman calling for a new Marshall Plan -- maybe the Trump Plan as he said -- to offer tons of development aid to North Korea as part of the upcoming talks.

WTF is going on with the Republican Party? Have they completely lost their collective minds? (Oh yeah, yes. Yes they did.) Clinton offered some oil and a nuclear reactor that couldn't make weapons-grade fissile material, the vast majority of which was to be paid for by Japan and South Korea, and Republicans totally lost their shit over that plan.

Trump goes apoplectic when he talks about this right-wing conspiracy theory of secret airplane flights that illegally delivered tons of cash to Iran, in exchange for them ending their nuclear program.

And now some dude in that same party wants to commit the U.S. taxpayer to rebuilding North Korea on the basis of a deal that isn't even on the table yet? Talk about crazy.

Vinyl Turnip 04-30-2018 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAZombie (Post 20931644)
Trump should win the Nobel Peace Prize, says South Korea's Moon

"President Trump should win the Nobel Peace Prize. What we need is only peace," Moon told a meeting of senior secretaries, according to a presidential Blue House official who briefed media.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...oon/ar-AAwxgsO

Moon, like anyone else who has to deal with our president and isn't a complete fool, has ascertained that a flattered Trump is a pacified Trump. So, sure, give him the Nobel Peace Prize. Give him four or five of them. Give him toys to play with and trophies to wave around— whatever it takes to keep him distracted so other people can try to get things accomplished without him fucking it up.

ElvisL1ves 04-30-2018 11:14 AM

That's it. In addition, he is the President and he does have all the power of the United States at his command. If being on the good side of that power means a little self-humiliation at times, well, that's what you signed up for when you went into politics, right?

Chisquirrel 04-30-2018 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAZombie (Post 20931644)
Hillary would have taken us to war. Think about that.

I know nobody's asked it, but I want a cite for that one.

Ludovic 04-30-2018 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morgenstern (Post 20931675)
no screwing playboy models

I'm pretty sure you're right, but then again I haven't read every issue of the Enquirer so maybe they know something I don't.

John Mace 04-30-2018 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ravenman (Post 20931918)
There was a Republican congressman calling for a new Marshall Plan -- maybe the Trump Plan as he said -- to offer tons of development aid to North Korea as part of the upcoming talks.

WTF is going on with the Republican Party? Have they completely lost their collective minds? (Oh yeah, yes. Yes they did.) Clinton offered some oil and a nuclear reactor that couldn't make weapons-grade fissile material, the vast majority of which was to be paid for by Japan and South Korea, and Republicans totally lost their shit over that plan.

Trump goes apoplectic when he talks about this right-wing conspiracy theory of secret airplane flights that illegally delivered tons of cash to Iran, in exchange for them ending their nuclear program.

And now some dude in that same party wants to commit the U.S. taxpayer to rebuilding North Korea on the basis of a deal that isn't even on the table yet? Talk about crazy.

I dunno. Labor rates in China are getting pretty high these days. Did you see the latest episode of Silicon Valley on HBO? Chinese workers are begin coddled to the point where they are no longer jumping out of buildings! We need a new pool of dirt cheap labor, and NK might just be the ticket.

LAZombie 04-30-2018 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chisquirrel (Post 20932186)
I know nobody's asked it, but I want a cite for that one.

Meh, you're right. If the way Hillary ran her campaign is any indication of how she would run the White House, she wouldn't have the energy to start a war what with all the briefings and such.

Ravenman 04-30-2018 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAZombie (Post 20932467)
Meh, you're right. If the way Hillary ran her campaign is any indication of how she would run the White House, she wouldn't have the energy to start a war what with all the briefings and such.

She had pretty much the same number of rallies that Trump did, about 300. You're starting to sound like you're adopting the sexist argument about "when a man talks loud, he's assertive; when a woman talks loud, she's screeching" to the campaign stump: "when a man holds 300 rallies, he's a real go-getter; when a woman holds 300 rallies, she's low energy."

LAZombie 04-30-2018 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ravenman (Post 20932481)
She had pretty much the same number of rallies that Trump did, about 300. You're starting to sound like you're adopting the sexist argument about "when a man talks loud, he's assertive; when a woman talks loud, she's screeching" to the campaign stump: "when a man holds 300 rallies, he's a real go-getter; when a woman holds 300 rallies, she's low energy."

Wow, you're right! I looked up Hillary's rallies and they were roughly equal to Trump's. It just goes to show that even a zombie can be wrong.

But let me assure you that sexism had nothing to do with my assumption. My mother is an executive in high-tech. Sort of like Sarah Palin in your IT Department.

Ravenman 04-30-2018 05:46 PM

And let me be clear, I’m not saying you are sexist. I was just pointing out that when women act similar to men, some consider the man’s behavior normal and the woman’s to be a character flaw.

asahi 04-30-2018 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ravenman (Post 20931918)
There was a Republican congressman calling for a new Marshall Plan -- maybe the Trump Plan as he said -- to offer tons of development aid to North Korea as part of the upcoming talks.

WTF is going on with the Republican Party? Have they completely lost their collective minds? (Oh yeah, yes. Yes they did.) Clinton offered some oil and a nuclear reactor that couldn't make weapons-grade fissile material, the vast majority of which was to be paid for by Japan and South Korea, and Republicans totally lost their shit over that plan.

Trump goes apoplectic when he talks about this right-wing conspiracy theory of secret airplane flights that illegally delivered tons of cash to Iran, in exchange for them ending their nuclear program.

And now some dude in that same party wants to commit the U.S. taxpayer to rebuilding North Korea on the basis of a deal that isn't even on the table yet? Talk about crazy.

In both cases, the 1990s and now, it's pure, naked politics. Shit, as far as Republicans are concerned, the game of foreign policy was 'game on' the moment Reagan "won" the Cold War all by himself, as though Russia (USSR) was an economic machine until Reagan bankrupted it with star wars.:rolleyes: Since Reagan, Republicans have been committed to undermining Democrats on foreign policy, but everything they oppose is good when they do it.

Chisquirrel 04-30-2018 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAZombie (Post 20932467)
Meh, you're right. If the way Hillary ran her campaign is any indication of how she would run the White House, she wouldn't have the energy to start a war what with all the briefings and such.

Glad you're able to back up your claims with...ummmm...well, nothing. Seems appropriate given your post history to date.

Little Nemo 05-01-2018 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAZombie (Post 20932612)
My mother is an executive in high-tech. Sort of like Sarah Palin in your IT Department.

You mean she was promoted past her level of competence?

LAZombie 05-01-2018 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ravenman (Post 20931918)
There was a Republican congressman calling for a new Marshall Plan -- maybe the Trump Plan as he said -- to offer tons of development aid to North Korea as part of the upcoming talks.

WTF is going on with the Republican Party? Have they completely lost their collective minds? (Oh yeah, yes. Yes they did.) Clinton offered some oil and a nuclear reactor that couldn't make weapons-grade fissile material, the vast majority of which was to be paid for by Japan and South Korea, and Republicans totally lost their shit over that plan.

Trump goes apoplectic when he talks about this right-wing conspiracy theory of secret airplane flights that illegally delivered tons of cash to Iran, in exchange for them ending their nuclear program.

And now some dude in that same party wants to commit the U.S. taxpayer to rebuilding North Korea on the basis of a deal that isn't even on the table yet? Talk about crazy.

Peace is less expensive than war.

We may end up spending 6 to7 trillion dollars on Middle East wars after everything is said and done. That doesn't account for the lost lives either. Just as a general rule, I would rather buy peace than fight for it. Reuniting the Koreas seems far more possible than bringing Iraq into civility. In a purely pragmatic sense, rebuilding North Korea may be best for everyone.

Of course, it could be a political nightmare for Republicans as Democrats will ask why we're spending so much money rebuilding a foreign country while cities run by Democrats need rebuilding.

Ravenman 05-01-2018 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAZombie (Post 20933695)
Just as a general rule, I would rather buy peace than fight for it.

Right, but context is everything. Iran got NOTHING from the American taxpayer, but it is portrayed as a rip-off. Rebuilding North Korea -- something that South Korea has really been planning for for a long time if reunification happens -- would potentially put U.S. taxpayer on the hook for real money.

Plus, the idea of providing billions in aid to North Korea in the absence of reunification just seems... stupid. Providing sanctions relief in exchange for an end of their nuclear program? Of course! But for cold, hard cash? Terrible deal.

It's pretty clear that Trump is the worst negotiator who has ever been in DC. He couldn't close the healthcare repeal and replace deal with his own party, he got the tax bill my the measure of a gnat's ass, and has lost two straight budget negotiations to the minority party. He is terrible at this. Which means that we should be worried about what a Trump-KJU negotiation will mean. Frankly, I'd be far more optimistic if Pompeo or even Tillerson was leading the talks.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Nemo (Post 20933274)
You mean she was promoted past her level of competence?

This is very funny.

LAZombie 05-02-2018 04:51 PM

North Korea reportedly hands Trump another big win by releasing US prisoners

"North Korea has released three US citizens detained there, the Financial Times reported Wednesday, citing a South Korean activist who campaigns for the release of detainees.

The releases would meet some of the US's demands for North Korea to demonstrate sincerity before a historic meeting between President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un — something that John Bolton, Trump's hawkish national security adviser, reiterated during an interview on Fox News on Sunday."

http://www.businessinsider.com/north...isoners-2018-5

Fear Itself 05-02-2018 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAZombie (Post 20936644)
North Korea reportedly hands Trump another big win by releasing US prisoners

"North Korea has released three US citizens detained there, the Financial Times reported Wednesday, citing a South Korean activist who campaigns for the release of detainees.

The releases would meet some of the US's demands for North Korea to demonstrate sincerity before a historic meeting between President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un — something that John Bolton, Trump's hawkish national security adviser, reiterated during an interview on Fox News on Sunday."

http://www.businessinsider.com/north...isoners-2018-5

Not so fast:

Quote:

The three citizens— Kim Dong-chul, Kim Sang-duk, and Kim Hak-song — have been released from a labor camp and given health treatment and ideological education in Pyongyang, the Financial Times report said.

"We heard it through our sources in North Korea late last month," Choi Sung-ryong told the news outlet. "We believe that Mr. Trump can take them back on the day of the US-North Korea summit or he can send an envoy to take them back to the US before the summit."
Sounds like Kim is using them as bait. Do you think Trump will make them stay there for another month?

carnivorousplant 05-02-2018 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fear Itself (Post 20936680)
Not so fast:

Sounds like Kim is using them as bait. Do you think Trump will make them stay there for another month?

My money is on Donald bringing them back with him with whatever additional intestinal parasite the accumulate between now and then. I wonder if he will sit next to them on the plane.

Fear Itself 05-02-2018 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carnivorousplant (Post 20936827)
My money is on Donald bringing them back with him with whatever additional intestinal parasite the accumulate between now and then. I wonder if he will sit next to them on the plane.

And if the meeting falls through, they are stuck in a Pyongyang re-education center.

carnivorousplant 05-02-2018 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fear Itself (Post 20936874)
And if the meeting falls through, they are stuck in a Pyongyang re-education center.

Where they are beaten for eating a grain of corn they found in the dirt.
Yep.

Gyrate 05-03-2018 03:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fear Itself (Post 20936680)
Not so fast:

Sounds like Kim is using them as bait. Do you think Trump will make them stay there for another month?

Translation: "Donald, you can either send an envoy now to bring the Americans home, which would be more humane, or you can make them wait in our re-education camp and bring them home personally with all the photo ops that will provide for you. And if you don't turn up, you'll look like the selfish bitch you are."

Kim or his team have just played Donald like a harp, knowing there's no way he'll bring them home early and no way he can skip out on the talks. (Mind you, if he does bring them home early I'll be mightily impressed at whoever convinced him to do it. Steve Doocey, maybe.)

Shodan 05-03-2018 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gyrate (Post 20937464)
Translation: "Donald, you can either send an envoy now to bring the Americans home, which would be more humane, or you can make them wait in our re-education camp and bring them home personally with all the photo ops that will provide for you. And if you don't turn up, you'll look like the selfish bitch you are."

Kim or his team have just played Donald like a harp, knowing there's no way he'll bring them home early and no way he can skip out on the talks. (Mind you, if he does bring them home early I'll be mightily impressed at whoever convinced him to do it. Steve Doocey, maybe.)

I guess we will see today.

Regards,
Shodan

carnivorousplant 05-03-2018 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 20937681)
I guess we will see today.

Regards,
Shodan

Outstanding!

Shodan 05-03-2018 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carnivorousplant (Post 20937724)
Outstanding!

Will this actually happen? Probably. Would it have happened under any other President (who wanted to negotiate with the Northies)? Probably. Is it a sign that NK is going to negotiate in good faith? Almost certainly not. Will the negotiations lead to NK de-nuclearizing? Hell no.

Is it a good thing anyway? Yes.

Regards,
Shodan

Ashtura 05-03-2018 09:43 AM

I think this is a combination of a lot of things.

1. Trump, Moon, and Kim want US troops out of Korea. It's a win/win/win.
2. Kim's nuke test site is destroyed.
3. China's finally putting on considerable pressure.
4. Trump is the first president credibly crazy enough to attack NK without giving SK's safety much thought. NK has never had to deal with that before.
5. Kim knows he can start pulling crap again in a few years anyway. Only this time, there will be no American troops there.

Gyrate 05-03-2018 09:55 AM

Well I'll be. A good thing is likely to happen. I tip my hat to whomever was responsible. Going by that article, even SHS appears to be striking the right tone, despite Rudy's best efforts to screw everything up. If they come home today I will be thrilled.

elucidator 05-03-2018 09:57 AM

"Troops" are a bit of a misnomer, they are mostly armed and uniformed hostages. They are nestled amidst a much larger group, neither armed nor uniformed, which, for the sake of convenience, we may refer to as "everybody else".

BeepKillBeep 05-03-2018 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ashtura (Post 20937857)
3. China's finally putting on considerable pressure.
4. Trump is the first president credibly crazy enough to attack NK without giving SK's safety much thought. NK has never had to deal with that before.
5. Kim knows he can start pulling crap again in a few years anyway. Only this time, there will be no American troops there.

These are the three key ones. And I believe 3 and 4 are linked. China fears that Trump really could invade NK and they do not want that. So better to put some pressure on NK, at least while Trump is in charge.

#4 is exactly why Trump will not, and should not, get the Nobel Peace Prize. Although, I heard Trump's nomination is past the deadline anyway.

Chisquirrel 05-06-2018 02:18 PM

Well, if we're just up and believing North Korea, looks like Trump didn't have shit to do with it.

HurricaneDitka 05-06-2018 02:52 PM

Quote:

Moon said Trump deserved a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to end the standoff with the North.
Which source do you consider more credible?

k9bfriender 05-06-2018 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka (Post 20943746)
Which source do you consider more credible?

Are you asking whether we should take someone's word about why they are doing something, or take someone else's word why someone else is going something?

As negotiations are barely started, and there is no denuclearization to be seen as of yet, I don't know that anyone can be credited for anything.

But, as the actual party in question, and the one that is being asked to denuclearize is the one explaining what is causing them to have the reactions that they are, it is at least useful to listen to them, and not immediately label them as liars.

Though, I suppose I could see trump doing exactly that. Touting his negotiation skills, calling Kim out on what trump perceives as a slight, and moving us back away from the negotiation table.

Remember, nothing is yet accomplished. Giving trump credit for things that are not yet done does not make much sense.

Chisquirrel 05-06-2018 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka (Post 20943746)
Which source do you consider more credible?

Do you believe Moon's statement was directed towards the Norwegian Nobel Committee or Donald Trump?

carnivorousplant 05-06-2018 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chisquirrel (Post 20943915)
Do you believe Moon's statement was directed towards the Norwegian Nobel Committee or Donald Trump?

That is what I was going to suggest, he is sucking up to the US President.

Snowboarder Bo 05-06-2018 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip (Post 20931920)
Moon, like anyone else who has to deal with our president and isn't a complete fool, has ascertained that a flattered Trump is a pacified Trump. So, sure, give him the Nobel Peace Prize. Give him four or five of them. Give him toys to play with and trophies to wave around— whatever it takes to keep him distracted so other people can try to get things accomplished without him fucking it up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves (Post 20931937)
That's it. In addition, he is the President and he does have all the power of the United States at his command. If being on the good side of that power means a little self-humiliation at times, well, that's what you signed up for when you went into politics, right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chisquirrel (Post 20943915)
Do you believe Moon's statement was directed towards the Norwegian Nobel Committee or Donald Trump?

Quote:

Originally Posted by carnivorousplant (Post 20944049)
That is what I was going to suggest, he is sucking up to the US President.

You know who doesn't have to suck up to the US President? Kim Jong Un.
Quote:

With just weeks to go before President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un are expected to hold their first-ever summit, Pyongyang on Sunday criticized what it called “misleading” claims that Trump’s policy of maximum political pressure and sanctions are what drove the North to the negotiating table.

The North’s official news agency quoted a Foreign Ministry spokesman warning the claims are a “dangerous attempt” to ruin a budding detente on the Korean Peninsula after Kim’s summit late last month with South Korean President Moon Jae-in.
Quote:

Trump and senior U.S. officials have suggested repeatedly that Washington’s tough policy toward North Korea, along with pressure on its main trading partner China, have played a decisive role in turning around what had been an extremely tense situation. Just last year, as Kim was launching long-range missiles at a record pace and trading vulgar insults with Trump, it would have seemed unthinkable for the topic of denuclearization to be on the table.

But the North’s statement on Sunday seemed to be aimed at strengthening Kim’s position going into his meeting with Trump. Pyongyang claims Kim himself is the driver of the current situation.

“The U.S. is deliberately provoking the DPRK at the time when the situation on the Korean Peninsula is moving toward peace and reconciliation,” the spokesman was quoted as saying.
(bolding mine)

HurricaneDitka 05-06-2018 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo (Post 20944105)
You know who doesn't have to suck up to the US President? Kim Jong Un.(bolding mine)

So your impression is that Kim is a fearless truth-teller? Willing to give us the unvarnished truth? Is that it?

Johnny Ace 05-06-2018 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka (Post 20944207)
So your impression is that Kim is a fearless truth-teller? Willing to give us the unvarnished truth? Is that it?

Sort of like a certain current president I could name.

carnivorousplant 05-06-2018 07:12 PM

An irresistible force meets and unmovable object.
It will be interesting.

Chisquirrel 05-06-2018 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka (Post 20944207)
So your impression is that Kim is a fearless truth-teller? Willing to give us the unvarnished truth? Is that it?

This is entire thread was STARTED based on someone claiming exactly that. Who could that person possibly be, and could he possibly be invited back to the thread to share why he felt Kim Jong Un was being utterly truthful when he claimed North Korea was ending their nuclear ambitions?

XT 05-06-2018 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ashtura (Post 20937857)
I think this is a combination of a lot of things.

1. Trump, Moon, and Kim want US troops out of Korea. It's a win/win/win.
2. Kim's nuke test site is destroyed.
3. China's finally putting on considerable pressure.
4. Trump is the first president credibly crazy enough to attack NK without giving SK's safety much thought. NK has never had to deal with that before.
5. Kim knows he can start pulling crap again in a few years anyway. Only this time, there will be no American troops there.

6. The potential for a US/China trade war has probably (well, definitely) got the Chinese spooked, as they can't be sure if Trump is crazy and stupid enough to go all in, and so they are trying to do what they can and exert what leverage they can on the NK situation and probably through back channels get the message to Trump that they are doing so.


I think that mainly this is NK doing what they have always done...they pushed the situation to the max, now they want to appear to be making concessions and are expecting some sort of pay off. We've gone through this cycle several times in the past, and I have no doubt it will be rinse and repeat down the road, until the regime finally collapses. I doubt any serious changes will be made, structurally, to NK, as any change would just push they over the edge. I don't expect an actual peace treaty with SK, and I doubt they will do more than back burner their missile or nuke program...probably they will continue working on it with simulations or by buying tech (or getting it from one of the Chinese factions opposed to Xi), to re-emerge down the road when they want to push things again for more handouts.

I will say that Trump had a non-zero effect on this, IMHO anyway. I think he IS crazy and stupid, and that his willingness to do unexpected and stupid shit (I could give a laundry list of actions, but just consider the first Syrian strike and this idiotic trade war brinksmanship as military and economic things that have everyone wondering what the fuck he might do next) has spooked a lot of more rational (and isn't it ironic that the CCP would be a more rational player?? :(:eek:) nations, and probably has the NK's actually wondering what he and the US might do next. It's one thing to play brinksman games when you figure the bigger guy won't do anything but view with alarm, but when he might decide to send in an air and missile strike seemingly out of the blue and without regard to the broader ramifications? Screw that noise, perhaps it's time to simmer things down and look like the rational party...plus, maybe get some nice swag or concessions for appearing to do so!


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:08 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.