Yes, not only have NK been given the upper hand in these discussions for the first time, they’re openly flaunting it. Trump is now officially Kim’s bitch.
They can have all the discussions they want: all indications are that North Korea has the ability (perhaps crude) to launch nukes from subs.
Trump’s “deal making” has allowed something to happen that I thought the US would never allow, which is to allow NK the ability to hit the US mainland with nukes. Yes, if NK actually launched so much as one in our direction, it would be bad for NK, but let’s say NK can credibly put on the table the ability to hit every major American metropolitan area with a nuke: what leverage does the US have then? What can the US do to stop NK then? How can they credibly “protect” Japan and South Korea then?
Answer is, they can’t do that any more than we could “protect” Europe against an all out Soviet attack. What this means is that we’re very close to the point at which NK can do whatever it wants to terrorize its neighbors with impunity. If the Russians invade Eastern Europe, there’s nothing we can do about that militarily - nothing at all. Same with North Korea if they terrorize their Asian neighbors by shooting missiles over Japan and South Korea, which they will continue to do until the sanctions are lifted.
Hellooooooo?! That’s exactly what the fuck I’ve been trying to explain all along.
And that’s also why Iran is going to take a page out of North Korea’s playbook, and not Iraq’s. They’re going to escalate and harass, and be a pain in our ass. There’s no reward for capitulation; the reward comes from successfully putting pressure on the US and allies, and making them pay prices they don’t want to pay.
Can we assume, for the sake of discussion here, that we’re all aware that the US sold nuclear reactors to NK a mere 2 years before we placed them on an “axis of evil” list? And that they were sold from a company Don Rumsfeld had once sat on the board of directors of? And that this was an utterly bipartisan move/plan/program having been initiated during the Clinton administration and wrapped up under the Bush administration? And that we all helped fund NK’s purchase of these nuclear reactors?
The two faces of Rumsfeld
2000: director of a company which wins $200m contract to sell nuclear reactors to North Korea
2002: declares North Korea a terrorist state, part of the axis of evil and a target for regime change
Rumsfeld was on ABB board during deal with North Korea
As for Iran, we all get that the US toppled Iran’s duly democratically elected govt to insert one of our own choosing, no?
I cannot imagine why Iran would be so hostile to US for no reason like that.
That’s interesting info, and part of a long history of carrots and sticks as US policy evolved (as it did toward a young Ho Chi Minh, a young-to-middle-aged Saddam Hussein, etc., etc.)…but it’s not particularly relevant to current policy decisions.
You have posted in several threads today, all with the same message: “EVERYONE sucks, and they always have!”. It could be a coincidence. It seems you are trying to get people to be cynical toward all people in power. There’s some value in this, but given the current impeachment crisis in the US executive branch, it looks suspiciously like you have an ulterior motive.
I will say no more — I shouldn’t be junior modding. But your repeated theme is a derailment (in some threads more than in others). I humbly suggest you start a thread called something like “Everyone in power has behaved badly,” and concentrate your efforts there.
I’ll never understand why some folks are so nervous about discussions. And that’s all this is. You’re nervous about what I’m posting, what, not the acceptable “left” partisanshithead versus “right” patisanshithead hissyfitting? Where oh where to find a safe space.
I rather think the “message” is a tad over your head/outside your acceptable lines.
If you can create some problems for me here by tattling, go ahead. Life will go on, somehow, glad to have rattled your cage.
Hah! Nothing rattled here, as you know. I think it’s a fine discussion to have. Just not in threads about other subjects. I admit your theme is POTENTIALLY relevant in this thread, if you had connected (even in an abstract, comparative sense) the Clinton and Rumsfeld policies to the ones today. But since you’ve also “contributed” to at least one thread today as a total hijack (the “advice to Pelosi” one), it’s hard to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Yes, but this isn’t how our political system is supposed to work. In fact, using one’s political office to personally profit is usually seen as a textbook definition of “corruption” (and is one of the reasons behind the Emoluments clause).