“Statesmanship”.
Reading the OP in hindsight is utterly hilarious (sadly so, of course). Of course, it was pretty funny at the time as well, but it’s even funnier now.
It features a Faux news link as a cherry on top. 
Until you realize he votes.
How de know that DoD did not detect the launches? Perhaps they did but are keeping them secret so the Dotard-in-Chief doesn’t throw a tantrum.
A great tribute to our Great Leader’s great statesmanship. Will he use it in his campaign ads?
How long and strong is it? I’ve heard he pulls it out as a 15th club when he plays golf — it’s a baffing spoon, for use when he needs a double-eagle on a par-6 hole. It’s the 2nd-largest long dong in the solar system I hear, dwarfed only by Dear Leader Kim’s (which is kept discretely coiled around Kim’s waist).
Oh? Has OP taken up comedy-writing for one of the campaigns? Should we be worried?
So, just to be clear here, you think that the North Koreans firing short ranged tactical missiles off their west coast is the equivalent of them firing intercontinental grade missiles over Japan…oh, and the odd nuclear test? THIS, to you, is an ‘escalation’? Seriously, I don’t get where you all are coming from. It’s been nearly 2 years since the last actual test of a long range, intercontinental ballistic missile, and about the same for a nuclear test. Even if they start doing that stuff again, that’s quite a while and a non-zero accomplishment.
I’m unsure what you all expect, or what the complaint even is. Is it that you think the US shouldn’t have held North Korea’s feet to the fire or reacted to their obvious (actual) escalation as they ramped up provocative tests in missile and nuclear technology? Is it just that it’s Trump doing it? I mean, I hate the guy at least as much as most of you, but I’m not seeing the issue here, or what you guys think we should have done instead. Nothing? Something…else? The only thing short of what we are trying here is war. We’ve done the whole sanctions thing. We never were able, until recently, to get China on board with those. We were never able to put this level of pressure on North Korea either, as they have at least surface pressure on all sides now (China, of course, is breaking their word under the table wrt sanctions). What do you all recommend here? What should we do or should we have done?
As to these tests, of course they are North Korea trying to hint that they aren’t happy. We know that already…everyone knows it. They AREN’T happy, and they are under a ton of pressure, especially with yet another round of mismanagement and crop failures. But notice, they still haven’t gone back on their promise to stop nuclear testing, and still haven’t gone back on their promise to test long range ICBMs? These tests are, of course, not covered in any of that. Now, in December, they could restart testing…that’s what they promised after all, to abide by all of this until then. I expect they probably will restart such testing. But they will be in an even weaker position by that point. Time isn’t on their side.
In the case of the one you responded to: here? 
Just a thought, but maybe if we hadn’t given away so many bargaining chips FOR FREE - most notably a photo op with the US President and cancellation of joint military exercise with South Korea - maybe we’d have more bargaining chips available to use right now?
This WaPo article, if accurate, supports my analysis.
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21596729&postcount=817
I think the fundamental question re North Korea is sanctions: can Trump push aside Bolton and Pompeo, or will Bolton and Pompeo make Trump believe that he’s being played for a fool, and will North Korea do something at the wrong time to piss Trump off and convince Trump that Bolton and Pompeo are right (even though they’re not - easing sanctions is the right way to go). And that latter scenario happens, then watch the hell out.
Right now, John Bolton is one of the most dangerous men on the planet.
I disagree that, at this time, easing sanctions is the right way to go. We’ve done that in the past and it hasn’t ever worked out. We need something tangible first. Whether Trump is really on board with this or being lead by the nose I couldn’t say, but right now, at this time, the smart thing for the US to do is push for some tangible actions by the NKs to demonstrate they are never going to restart their nuclear or ICBM testing and get them to reduce if not completely disarm the nukes they have, or we walk away and just kick the can down the road with the sanctions continuing until we do get that commitment. I’d offer a huge carrot as well for North Korea TOO do this, promising not only a lifting of the sanctions but substantial aid and trade. But the ball is in their court to demonstrate a good faith they never have before.
I disagree that we really lived up to the framework of the 1990s. That initial framework that Clinton proposed in 1994 was ultimately rejected by Republicans who took over in 1995. As a result, it was left to an alternative framework with participating parties from Japan, S Korea, and the United States to help build a reactor, which IIRC suffered from funding problems and delays. That’s not to say that North Korea wasn’t provocative and didn’t cause problems of their own, but one of the sticking points from the NK side was that we never lived up to the bargain that Kim Jong Il agreed to. Bush’s putting them on the Axis of Evil, marked for regime change, and then proceeding to overthrow Saddam Hussein didn’t help.
Again, what a lot of people fail to understand is that from the NK point of view, this is about the security of the regime. Sanctions are a clear and present danger to political stability, and they’re not going to tolerate it without fighting back. That is their position. The question is, what is ours? How badly do we want to impose sanctions and what do we expect to get out of it? Do we expect regime change? What cost are we and our allies in the region willing to pay for that? What happens after Kim is overthrown? We perpetually seem to be putting pressure on regimes we don’t like all the way up to the point of conflict without asking these very important questions and then seem surprised at having to deal with a whole host of new problems we never anticipated (mainly because we never thought about them seriously).
Let me ask you a serious question here. Let’s say Trump pushed through some agreement with another country that the Democrats don’t agree with. Do you think that, when the worm turns and the Democrats regain power, that they should still be bound by that? You do understand that, no matter what agreements the president comes to, that it’s the Congress and Senate that ratify real treaties that bind the US, right? And, assuming you do get that, do you not think that other countries also get that? Basically, if you have an agreement with a US president that isn’t ratified by the congress then you have to rely on the other party to continue to honor that when they come to power. Maybe they will…maybe they won’t.
As for the security of the regime, it depends on what you mean by that. If you mean they need it to protect from the US or some external threat, then I call bullshit. If you mean that the Kim family thinks they need it to hold onto power internally, then I’d tend to agree with you…and then go on to say ‘got to hate that’, as that holds no water with me anyway. And it certainly hold no water wrt the negotiations we are discussing in this thread. There is no reason the US should negotiate for less than full disarmament and a halt to provocative testing. Now, we might settle for just the latter, but at this stage I think we should push as hard as we can to resolve this thing at the negotiating table…or not, if the NKs just want to go on with the endless sanctions. One thing I’d say is, if the NKs are really so clueless as to not understand how our system works, they should probably invest a bit in figuring that out, and this time if they make major concessions they should get a ratified treaty from the Congress before they start disarming.
North Korea doesn’t give a shit about our internal politics. Kim Jong Il agreed to do his part provided that what was contained in the agreement was honored by the United States. It wasn’t. But I would argue that Bush’s policy of regime change changed the dynamics even more. Simply stating the policy that the United States gave itself the right to change a regime it didn’t agree with, in tandem with already existing sanctions, was something North Korea couldn’t ignore. North Korea was probably not fearful of a direct military attack, but they certainly feared being weakened and choked off economically to the point where their regime could fail. And that’s why they started their nuclear and ballistic missile program, as a way to counter the pressure the US was applying on its own regime with a different kind of pressure on ours. It can’t fight back economically, but it can threaten to destabilize a region, and if it does that, then US partners have to question whether or not their alliance is beneficial to their own regional interests going forward.
They understand how our system works just fine. It’s we who seem not to understand that sanctions are simply a different kind of warfare and that this is a matter of life and death for their regime. If you back a regime into a corner, you’d better understand the consequences of that.
Do not link to insulting posts that contain no actual information while attempting to provide “explanations” of other posters’ actions. This sort of action could well be regarded as a Warning-inducing personal attack.
[ /Moderating ]
Unfortunately that ship sailed when Trump tore up the Iran nuclear deal. Ironically, the deal you seem to want with NK is akin to the one we used to have with Iran, where sanctions were eased only in conjunction with an effective abandonment of a nuclear weapons program and the ability to verify compliance.
Understood. Just saying he’d likely find much more receptive students if he didn’t write like this.
I’d normally drop a note similar to what Tom did in post #840, but since he already did that and you felt the need to follow up with much of the same, this is a warning for failure to follow moderator instructions. I recommend when a note is given take it as direction to avoid that line of contribution.
[/moderating]
Attacking the post isn’t allowed anymore?
No. Presumably they would be smart enough to hold out for an actual treaty, instead of a presidential promise. I certainly would if we were talking actual disarmament, as opposed to simply stopping a development program…er, well, honestly, I’d have held out for that if I was Iran too. Of course, the REASON both are even entertaining this is because in both cases the countries are kind of screwed and need those sanctions lifted…and really, need the US to be the one lifting them. Pretty obviously, in Iran’s case it’s not enough that most other countries are still honoring the original agreement, because the US isn’t, and we are applying pressure on the international level to force compliance.
So, they don’t care about our politics but understand them…but are angry when, understanding them but not giving a shit about them it backfires on them when the next president from a different party comes along and, using our system, changes things? That’s pretty interesting logic.
As to consequences, what are they, exactly? Sure, North Korea COULD use their nukes…if they want to be completely wiped out. I just don’t see that as something they want. We haven’t really backed them into a corner from which there is no escape, they painted themselves into a corner and are hoping someone will let them out with all their toys intact. Perhaps the next Democratic president will, though unless and until they get Congress on board it’s kind of moot, as another Republican can come in and reverse it again.